Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Buses (Construction)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to prevent bus companies from using buses made with composite bodies, because such buses are more vulnerable to accidents than those made entirely of steel and are less durable and do not comply with the safety regulations of the Common Market countries with regard to vehicle construction.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): No, Sir.

Mr. Cronin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information is that these buses, if involved in road or other accidents, are crushed flat to seat level? Will he investigate this? If these buses are so dangerous, they surely should not attract substantial subsidy from the Government.

Mr. Walker: I will certainly examine any evidence which the hon. Gentleman likes to send to me. I am told that design structure is the crucial factor and that either method of construction can be as strong as demand insists. If the

hon. Gentleman has any particular example, I will look at it.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that where reinforced composites rather than pressed steel are used to replace aluminium, vehicles are not necessarily weakened?

Mr. Walker: I am sure my hon. Friend is right, but we must carefully examine the use of materials and ensure that no diminution of safety results.

New Towns (Home Ownership)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which new town corporations are selling houses to sitting tenants at a discount; and what is the total amount of houses made available for home ownership from these bodies.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): All rented dwellings in English new towns, except for certain flats and old people's dwellings, can be bought by sitting tenants. There is a discount of 20 per cent. on the current market value with vacant possession except where this would bring the selling price below historic cost. By the end of October over 115,000 tenants had been notified of this offer; over 24,000 have so far expressed an interest in buying; 17,500 have received a priced offer and of these over 8,500 have agreed the price including over 1,100 who have bought.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Basildon New Town in my constituency such has been the demand to buy corporation houses that there is now a considerable administrative log jam? Is there any temporary assistance which his Department might give, because people are becoming impatient at having to wait so long to purchase corporation properties?

Mr. Amery: Basildon has been peculiarly successful in the scheme which has been operated. In order to speed up the sales of houses Basildon Development Corporation does not require complete title but instead indemnifies purchasers against any claim arising from any defect in title which might appear in the future. This has been accepted both by building societies and by local


solicitors on behalf of clients and is working outstandingly well

Mr. Allason: While warmly congratulating my right hon. Friend on his success, may I ask whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient opportunity for people over the age of 50 to buy their houses?

Mr. Amery: At the moment the demand is so strong that I hesitate to add any additional inducement to the scheme but I shall have my hon. Friend's point very much in mind.

Speed Limits

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with the review of speed limits referred to in his predecessor's circular of 14th April, 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Progress varies though some good groundwork has been done in London. We shall be reminding local authorities of the need for more realism.

Sir R. Russell: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of regarding the 70 m.p.h. speed limit as advisory, in view of the difficulty of enforcing it, and not penalising drivers who exceed that speed limit, particularly on motorways, unless they are involved in an accident?

Mr. Griffiths: I am quite sure that speed limits that are firmly noted on the roads must be enforced and there can be no variation in their application.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will the hon. Gentleman do something about speed limits for lorries? Is he aware that on the Ml, along which I often travel to Watford, very long and heavy lorries travel at breakneck speed, leaving no hope for anyone who happens to be in their way?

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but had he been in the House some months ago when the necessary order was brought in he would have known that my right hon. Friend has already taken steps to bring heavy lorries under greater speed controls.

Home Ownership (Low Income Groups)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to encourage building societies to make it easier for low income groups to buy their own homes.

Mr. Amery: I have been closely in touch with leaders of the building society movement. Modestly paid mortgagors have been helped by a number of recent developments—notably by the increase in the money limit within which the Government help to guarantee high mortgage advances to option mortgagors. It is estimated from a sample survey that out of about 480,000 building society advances in the first nine months of this year, about 90,000 were made to mortgagors with incomes of less than £1,400 a year.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise that trend, but my hon. Friend will appreciate the increasing number of houses being built for private occupation, the reduction in mortgage interest rate and the simple fact that, given the chance, the vast majority of families want to start the process of owning their own homes. Could I suggest that the Department, as a matter of urgency, should get together with the Treasury to hammer out a policy to bring to reality what is but a dream—home ownership—for these families on low incomes?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. He will no doubt have noticed the steps taken by the Alliance Building Society to make it easier for people with reasonable prospects but with low incomes to buy their own houses.

Mr. Crosland: The whole House will wish to congratulate no fewer than three Conservative Members on preparing their own Questions and supplementary questions. If this is all their own work it is a most meritorious and unusual achievement. Does the Minister realise that making it easier for people on low incomes to buy their own houses is not fundamentally a matter for the building societies but is a matter of having a policy on land prices? Will he say what is the Government's policy in this respect?

Mr. Amery: It is one of the interesting problems that face the present Administration that we have to have a constructive land policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"]—whereas the Labour Party when in power was unable even to create demand for new houses. We are tackling this problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I am sure the House would be very weary if I were to indulge in a speech on land policy today, but there will be opportunities presently when I shall be able to give a detailed explanation on this score.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend impress on the building societies that as the average working man spends most of his life building up his pension, there is no reason why he should not spread repayment of his mortgage over a much longer period than the maximum at present allowed by the building societies?

Mr. Amery: I am sure that building societies will take note of my hon. Friend's point. They have already come a long way since the present Administration came to power in easing the task of those who want to buy their own homes.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister now reply to my right hon. Friend's question? Since in many areas the price of houses has gone up by as much as 15 per cent. in the past year, how can low-income families keep pace with house price increases?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from his knowledge of economics, that the price of land would not be going up, in spite of the reduction in interest rates, if there were not a very strong demand from the public which is saving money for the first time since the devaluation of 1968.

Wareham—Swanage Branch Line (Closure)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he rejected the conclusion of his own inspector relative to the bus service and the proposed closure of the Wareham-Swanage branch line.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The reasons for the decision were fully explained in an official letter of 29th September, 1971,

a copy of which was sent to my hon. Friend.

Mr. King: Is not the point that the Swanage-Wareham road communications are so poor that no number of buses could possibly replace the rail link? Is it not also a fact that this view is supported by the police, by the Automobile Association, by the Royal Automobile Club, by the Ministry's own inspector and by all those who were subjected to cross-examination? Is it not impossible, two years later, to ask local people to believe that a faceless official in my hon. Friend's Department knows more than any of those people?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will know that additional bus services will be provided on 3rd January next and he will also know that work on the Wareham bypass will start in 1973. One of the advantages of the integrated Department which we now have is that administratively bus, rail and road matters are all dealt with under the same roof. If my hon. Friend wants to come and discuss these matters with officials of those three elements of the Department, he is very welcome to do so.

Pavements

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to give directions to local highway authorities concerning the repair and upkeep of pavements.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the deplorable state of pavements in various parts of the country, particularly in Leicester? Does he not agree that with winter approaching this is a particular hazard to elderly people? Will he not do something to enable local authorities to fix pavements and not merely roads?

Mr. Heseltine: The local authorities have all the powers they need and I suggest that the hon. and learned Member gets in touch with them.

Railways (Financial Support)

Sir E. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial


support the Government plans to provide for British Rail in 1972.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will be making a statement early in the New Year about renewal of undertakings to pay grant on unremunerative rail passenger services. Following the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House on 9th November we are considering with the Railways Board the need for special assistance in the light of price restraint.

Sir E. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Could he say whether in his consultation with the Railways Board he is keeping within the limits suggested by the C.B.I. of a 5 per cent. increase?

Mr. Griffiths: Obviously the Railways Board's finances are affected by the C.B.I. initiative and it will be important to take this into account in my right hon. Friend's discussions with the board.

Mr. Mulley: Could the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that when a statement is made it will be made in this House? Will he make sure that this is done as soon as possible, because there is great anxiety about some of these routes and about the general financial position of British Rail?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Box Girder Bridges

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present position regarding investigation into the safety of box girder bridges; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Restrictions have been lifted on 19 of the 51 steel box girder bridges in service. Restrictions on a further eight will be lifted on completion of strengthening now being arranged. Investigations in the remaining cases are not yet complete. Three bridges previously under construction have been strengthened and opened to traffic.

Mr. Osborn: I accept that this has presented the Department and civil and structural engineers with a real problem. Could my hon. Friend say how many bridges are not in use at present? Is he

aware that the Tinsley bridge is still not in full use, and does he not agree that this is not a very good example for a city which is supposed to be a city of steel?

Mr. Page: The calculation of these bridges is an extremely lengthy and complex business. We have 50 design offices, many of which have several teams working on it with the assistance of computer aid, and we are trying to speed up the work. I am satisfied that we should not open any of these bridges until we are quite satisfied that they are strong enough.

Mr. Mulley: If I table a Question to the hon. Gentleman, will he try to give a date when the Tinsley bridge will be open, because it is a matter of great concern in Sheffield.

Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. I have not the date before me at present, but if the right hon. Gentleman will table a Question I will answer it.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made in the planning and negotiations on the Channel Tunnel project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: The studies now in hand continue to go well, but I do not expect to be in a position to make a statement on the next steps until the first part of next year.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most firms and industries welcome this project? Could he give the duration of the journey time for an advanced passenger train between London and Paris through the proposed tunnel?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give an exact estimate, but obviously it will be a substantial improvement on the present position and it will be competitive with virtually all other forms of transport.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are already very oriented as a nation towards the South-East? Would he bear in mind that the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily the best for Britain's


economy? Therefore, will he take into account the fact that by taking the route further west he might lengthen it but that it would not necessarily increase pro rata in cost?

Mr. Walker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I must point out that the one advantage of this tunnel is that it will be linked with the whole railway system, which will give massive new opportunities to British Rail and will mean that in regard to the movement of freight British Rail will be able to organise a fast nation-wide service.

Mr. Maddan: Could my right hon. Friend say that, while negotiations are still proceeding and everything is not completed, nevertheless in regard to planning in the South-East the effect of the tunnel is being fully taken into account.

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bradley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter of vital concern for the future of the British Rail workshops at Ashford, and will he prevail upon British Rail management to defer its plans for a run down of manpower pending a final decision on the tunnel?

Mr. Walker: British Rail has considered the whole problem of Ashford, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the possibilities of this tunnel are not only important for Ashford but are of immense importance to the whole railway network.

Transport Industry

Mr. Awdry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what capital investment plans are to be brought forward in order to provide employment in the transport industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 23rd November.—[Vol. 826, c. 1165–6.]

Mr. Awdry: While that is a welcome statement, does my hon. Friend agree that industrialists need continuity of orders so that they can plan ahead? Has my hon. Friend any proposal to produce a national

plan for transport dealing with all aspects of road and rail policy?

Mr. Griffiths: I recognise the need for industrialists to be able to plan forward. My right hon. Friend has a plan for total transport policy.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at present, I believe due to the shortage of plans as well as to the shortage of money, British Rail workshops are having to make 1,300 of my constituents redundant in the next 18 months? Will he reconsider the matter and have firm discussions with British Rail about what the Government can do to help in getting British Rail to build rolling stock and locomotives in advance of requirements?

Mr. Griffiths: I recognise the difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Swindon. He should remember, however, that British Rail is bringing forward substantial new investment in rolling stock, averting 400 redundancies at York and generating 300 new jobs mainly in the North-West. It is planning two new ferries for the Isle of Wight, which are probably to be built on Tyneside. London Transport is ordering new trains for the Northern Line, thereby preventing 500 redundancies in Birmingham. My right hon. Friend's other programmes are helping in employment substantially among those who make transport equipment for the nationalised industries.

Clean Air

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he intends to take to encourage the implementation of the Clean Air Act on a nationwide basis.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is urging all local authorities to resume smoke control energetically, particularly in the so called black areas. Now that all restrictions have been removed, it is up to them to get into top gear and stay there; for our part, we will give them all possible help and encouragement.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether it is not left in terms of exhortation rather than in terms of something more compulsory? Is he aware that three-quarters of premises in the


North are in black areas which are without smoke control zones and that Wales has hardly been touched by them? Can my hon. Friend use greater force on local authorities to make them take action?

Mr. Griffiths: There are powers under Section 8 of the Clean Air Act to compel local authorities. But this is a big stick which I hope that local authorities will not make it necessary for my right hon. Friend to use. Local authorities now have a chance to provide cleaner air for their local populations. I hope that they will take advantage of that chance.

Mr. Marks: When does the hon. Gentleman intend to introduce legislation increasing the penalties for offences against the Clean Air Act, especially by foreign ships, since they are of considerable detriment to the success of the Act in areas which have approved it?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is considering the whole range of penalties for pollution offences. I am sure that he will have in mind the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Laurance Reed: What is the objection to setting a deadline to this problem? I find that targets in respect of measures of this kind are an important motivation, especially for local authorities.

Mr. Griffiths: Now that the shortage of solid smokeless fuel has been overcome, there is no reason why the job should not be effectively complete throughout the country by the early 1980s.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While we welcome any action to speed up the programme, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important to try to get these schemes worked in with major area house improvement schemes?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, and this is very much my right hon. Friend's policy in that he is trying to manage the development of urban policy as a whole in such a fashion that all aspects of pollution control, land use planning and transport are seen as a co-ordinated whole.

Motorways (Fog)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans

he has for increasing the efficiency of the fog warning light system on the M1.

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the fog-warning lights system on the M1; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The present temporary emergency warning signals over the whole length of M1 are being progressively replaced by computer controlled signals. These are already operational on M1 in Yorkshire and I expect that the gantry signals at the southern end of M1 will be operational by mid-1972. Delays have been caused by technical problems.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are among the most frequent users of the motorway and that anyone who has been on the fringe of one of these hellish accidents in fog must be concerned about the inadequate fog warning light system? Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the average distance between the lights on the M1 compared with what it was, say, a year ago? Can he also say what proportion of them were in working order during the last serious accident on 29th November?

Mr. Heseltine: The new system of computer control which is being introduced will have lights spaced at two-mile intervals. The present temporary system had lights at one-mile intervals. But we are introducing a more complicated and sophisticated system. Details of which lights were in operation at the time of specific accidents is a matter about which I must write to the hon. Gentleman unless he cares to table a specific Question to me.

Mr. Madel: Is my hon. Friend aware that overhead lighting on the M4 has reduced accidents considerably? Cannot we have more of it on the M1?

Mr. Heseltine: This is a matter which my right hon. Friend has agreed to look at.

Mr. William Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he put fog lights every five yards some drivers would ignore them? What can he do about that?

Mr. Heseltine: It is impossible for me to ride in the car of every driver. In the end it is a matter of personal responsibility.

Mr. Awdry: Will my hon. Friend consider bringing in regulations compelling motorists to drive with dipped headlights in conditions of poor visibility?

Mr. Heseltine: This is one of the matters which will be considered by the group looking at these problems. Again, it is a matter of supplementary interest which we might deal with by correspondence.

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions lie has had with police forces about accidents in fog on the M1.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of police forces and users' associations last Friday to consider the problems of motorway accidents in fog generally.

Mr. Price: Is it not clear that successive Ministers of Transport, including the present Minister, have done everything humanly possible to reduce the level of road accidents but that the carnage continues much of it caused by excessive speed? Is not the time coming when we shall have to deal much more severely with the lunatics who take absolutely no notice of warnings or the conditions? Would the Minister start by at least considering the possibility of automatic suspension for all speeding offences?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider all suggestions that would help to reduce the carnage on the roads. Regarding, speeding, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is first necessary to catch those who speed and, second, it is a matter for the courts to punish them.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend agree that, apart from increasing the lighting on motorways, it would help if he encouraged the experiments conducted by some police forces of moving motorists in convoys when thick fog is known to be in the section for which they have responsibility?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. With the willing co-operation of the police we have set up a working group to examine the

convoy system, lane discipline and traffic segregation in fog.

Mr. Mulley: In this context, will the Under-Secretary also consider the serious allegations made in a Sunday newspaper that part of the safety barrier on the M1 is an element of danger rather than safety? When will he be able to reassure us on this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: This matter is being examined but, contrary to some reports, the barrier was not breached. We shall look at the question whether there were other incidental factors that require examination.

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, during the next four months of foggy weather, he will co-ordinate a plan for all motorway police patrols and the motoring organisations to hold a campaign for warning drivers to keep their distance from each other.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend and I have asked the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club to impress on all their members the need for sensible behaviour, and particularly keeping a safe distance.

Sir Clive Bossom: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Would he not agree that the best way to control and calm down mad, reckless drivers on motorways is to have more mobile police patrols? Therefore, could he approach his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to try to get local police authorities to put on the maximum numbers during the next four months?

Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I am sure that, within the limits of their resources, the police do their utmost to patrol motorways and to bring offenders to the courts.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a problem of reckless drivers but of drivers, otherwise careful and conscientious, who will drive a few feet from the lorry in front? Would it not be possible to install on some of the bridges a cinema which took a picture and on the basis of that cinema


to prosecute a number of people who were too close together? That is the only way of bringing this home to people, because they are not conscious that they are doing it.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider any practicable suggestion to reduce these accidents, but I am a little at a loss to understand how having a cinema on bridges would concentrate peoples' minds on the car immediately in front—

Mr. Paget: I meant a camera.

Mr. Griffiths: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. Of course, if it is feasible to do as he suggests, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider that suggestion.

Mr. John Hannam: As someone who was involved in the recent crash on the M1, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would accept that it is absolutely vital that a way is found of introducing much lower speed limits in foggy conditions? The difficulties are immense but there must be a solution to this problem. Would he look into this carefully?

Mr. Griffiths: That is one of the many important steps which were discussed by my right hon. Friend with the police and the representatives of the user associations last Friday, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we have this difficult problem very much in mind.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in all weathers the 70 m.p.h. speed limit is consistently and repeatedly broken on motorways by many motorists, as everyone knows who uses the motorways? Is he satisfied that the police do their utmost to enforce the law SO as to confine motorists to the existing speed limit?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, I am satisfied.

Housing Subsidy (Wolverhampton)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total housing subsidy paid to the Wolverhampton Council in 1969, 1970 and 1971; and what amount will be paid in 1972, 1974, and 1975.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Housing subsidies, including improvement contributions, totalling £901,118 were paid to Wolverhampton Council for 1969–70 and £1,074,865 for 1970–71. About £1·2 million is estimated to be payable for 1971–72. Under the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill the amounts which will be payable for 1972–73 and subsequent years will depend mainly on the state of the authority's housing revenue account and the authority itself is best placed to make such an estimate.

Mrs. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the authority has estimated that the sum that it is to receive under the iniquitous Housing Finance Bill will reduce considerably the amount that it has been receiving up to now? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, further, that Wolverhampton is an urban area which is in urgent need of housing renewal and a large housing programme? It will not have those needs met under the Bill. What special measures does the hon. Gentleman intend to introduce to enable urban areas like Wolverhampton to carry out their housing programmes?

Mr. Channon: The slum clearance subsidy proposed will be of tremendous help to areas of the sort that the hon. Lady mentions. I expect that Wolverhampton will be among them.

Road Improvements (County Durham)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he intends to sanction for road improvements in Durham County.

Mr. Peter Walker: Schemes submitted by Durham County Council are still being assessed for possible inclusion in the next extension of the principal roads preparation list, which we expect to announce early next year. I cannot anticipate that announcement, but various schemes are being brought forward from the existing road programme that will be of benefit to Durham County Council.

Mr. Dormand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the economic improvements resulting from the A1 motorway which goes through the centre of the county and the improved A19 which goes through my constituency on the east of


the county would be considerably enhanced by the construction of an east-west link road? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Durham County Council has made this one of its top priorities, if not the top priority, in its proposals? If the right hon. Gentleman's statements about freedom for local authorities mean anything, should not be accept it? If he does not, will he not be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

Mr. Walker: I cannot make announcements on the list of schemes, but I will give high priority to the North-East and regions like it on the most important road schemes that they put forward.

Water Supply and Disposal

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish a Green or White Paper on the future structure and duties of bodies concerned with the supply and disposal of water.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend announced the Government's proposals to the House on 2nd December. They are set out in more detail in an explanatory memorandum which was made available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that an explanatory memorandum is no substitute for a real White Paper? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend stated in that announcement that his Department had had discussions with the British Waterways Board about canal ownership but that I have a letter from the Board which suggests that while the chairman was informed the day before of the general content of the statement, there had not been previous discussions between the Department and the board about canal ownership as such? Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend either to withdraw the statement or explain why he made it?

Mr. Page: On the second point, the British Waterways Board gave evidence to the C.A.W.C. It was fully informed the whole way through. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There was no non-disclosure. On the first point, we thought it was the most expeditious way to get discussions going on this consultative document with this sort of explanatory memorandum, and there is a good

tradition for announcing a policy of this sort in that manner.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend agree that an entirely new look is needed not only at the preservation and supply of water but also at the conservation of it? Would he also agree that the existing water resources are not sufficient to deal with the increasing shortage being experienced in urban areas which are pulling water from rural areas? Should not the whole issue of a national pipeline be considered most urgently?

Mr. Page: Indeed. The reorganisation of water services proposed by the Government Departments is intended to take into account just this sort of difficulty.

Mr. Crosland: Do not we have a complete discrepancy of evidence here on the subject of consultation? On 2nd December the Secretary of State said:
As regards canal ownership, my Department has had discussions with the British Waterways Board".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 681.]
Is it not the case that the British Waterways Board has said that there had not been any previous discussion between the Department and the board on the question of canal ownership as such? There is a total conflict of evidence. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want to mislead the House. Would he care to correct his statement?

Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir. The reason why I made the statement to the House was that the British Waterways Board had given evidence to the C.A.W.C. which was the basis of the advice to me upon which I published the consultative document. If I gave a wrong impression as to the nature of the consultation, I apologise.

M6, Manchester (Lighting)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when lighting will be installed at junction 19 of Motorway M6 at its intersection with the Manchester to Chester road, A556.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable to include these proposals in the trunk road lighting programme for the present.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that this junction is the one at which most of


the Manchester-to-London traffic joins and leaves the motorway and that the traffic will be very considerably increased when the M6 link is completed? Travelling at this junction is a very hazardous occupation. Would the Minister expedite this matter as much as he can?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall certainly keep the matter under review. Obviously we will want to be sure that there is no unnecessary danger which would prejudice the figures on which our calculations have been made.

Folkestone Car Ferry (Access Roads)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the relevant authorities in the planning of road access for which he is responsible to the proposed roll-on/roll-off car ferry service from Folkestone, with a view to avoiding traffic congestion in Folkestone.

Mr. Graham Page: Access to the car ferry terminal is a matter for Folkestone Borough Council as highway authority. The borough engineer has asked my Department to convene a meeting of the authorities concerned to consider the effect on the town's roads of the increased traffic which will be generated. As a preliminary, further information is being sought from British Railways about the extent of their proposals.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that when British Railways applied for planning permission they indicated that two ferries were operating? They have now changed that number to six. The Minister will appreciate that this will cause havoc with the traffic. Will he consider giving a bigger grant than the £22,000 to meet this change?

Mr. Page: All these matters will be considered for the proposed meeting on the subject. I was aware of the increase in the number suggested by British Railways, and I am seeking further information from them about it.

Roads (London—Dover)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the programme for the improvement of the roads from London to Dover, with a view to accelerating this development to meet the increase in road traffic to the

port of Dover expected in 1972 and thereafter.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the improvement of roads from London to Dover, but I am satisfied that good progress is being maintained.

Mr. Crouch: I am sorry to advise my hon. Friend that I do not have such a comfortable feeling about the matter. Will he take it from me that it is necessary for either him or another member of his Department, or his officials, to consult the Director of the Dover Harbour Board for information on the tremendous buildup which is expected not only next year but in the years succeeding 1972?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate that a very large number of schemes for this particular road are now under way and that the overall improvement of the road should be completed by the mid-1970s. But regarding the particular extension to the Dover East Docks which has recently been announced, we shall have to look at this in the light of traffic which develops there consequentially.

European Economic Community

Mr. Mawby: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has made of the effects of the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community on the motorist; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Community's present rules will have little effect on the private motorist. Under arrangements agreed with the Community, the Government will be fully consulted on proposed developments.

Mr. Mawby: Yes, but will my hon. Friend pay attention to the attitude taken about the deprivation of licence? In these circumstances, will he take into account and give further encouragement and support to motor-familiarisation, especially for young people in school, as instituted by the Automobile Association?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the Minister bear in mind that whereas left-hand-drive motorists instinctively turn left


to avoid oncoming traffic and right-hand-drive motorists instinctively turn right, the increasing inter-change between Britain and the Continent which is likely to emerge from Britain's joining the Common Market will increase the likelihood of accidents arising from this factor with increasing frequency?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. But I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that millions of people from this country have been travelling to and from the Continent of Europe, whether or not there was British membership of the European Community, and there is no evidence to show that this has led to a substantial increase in accidents.

U.N. Conference on the Environment

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the rôle of the four Stockholm Conference working parties in the Government's preparation for the United Nations conference on the Environment in Stockholm.

Mr. Peter Walker: The four working parties have carried out a massive exercise of consultation with individuals and organisations throughout the United Kingdom. Their conclusions will be published and their advice and conclusions will be used by me in presenting Britain's contribution to the Stockholm Conference.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be attending the Stockholm Conference? Will he say who else will be attending the conference next June?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I will be attending, but I cannot confirm the nature of the delegation as yet. The size of the delegation has not been agreed and, therefore, neither has the nature of it been decided.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would it not be desirable for the House to be associated with this very important world conference? Is the Minister satisfied that the working groups he established have been meeting and have done a useful job?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question because it has been suggested elsewhere that they

have not been meeting. They have all been meeting to a tremendous extent over the last six or seven months. They have carried out hundreds of meetings throughout the country and they have met together. I do not know of a greater degree of consultation with people in the country interested in this topic that has taken place in this country. As to the nature of the delegation, this is a conference of Governments. I do not believe that there are great party differences on our approach to this and, therefore, I wanted to represent the British viewpoint.

Compulsory Purchase (Explanatory Leaflet)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to issue the necessary amending orders with regard to the prescribed statutory form of explanatory leaflet used when compulsory purchase orders are made, under Part III of the Housing Act, 1957, in order to bring them up to date with, and make them appropriate to, the changes in compensation that were made in the Housing Act, 1969.

Mr. Amery: The necessary Statutory Instrument will be laid before Parliament early in the New Year.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is very good news indeed because as no amendment has been made to the form prescribed in the 1957 Act—although substantial changes were made in the 1959 Act—local authorities have been forced, for two and a half years, to issue a form of notice with regard to slum clearance compensation that was not only complicated and difficult for the layman to understand but was misleading and incorrect? I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is to put an end to this administrative gobbledegook.

Mr. Amery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Town Clerk of Gloucester for their vigilance which has kept us up to the mark.

Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time as he issues the new notice, inform those concerned that the change in the law which brought


the matter into proper perspective and gave people greater opportunities for decent compensation was brought in by the previous Government?

Mr. Amery: I shall look into the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mersey Tunnel (Box Girder Bridges)

Mr. Crawshaw: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give extra financial assistance to the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee to help it meet the extra cost imposed by his Department's requirement to investigate and if necessary carry out remedial work on box-girder bridges.

Mr. Graham Page: The costs of the remedial works will be shared between my Department, the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee and the local authority concerned in the same way as costs were allocated with respect to the original construction works.

Mr. Crawshaw: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee has been involved in considerable extra expense, first, because one of its predecessors changed a junction which cost an extra £1 million for a viaduct and, second, because it is having to find £4 million for the approach roads? Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman's Department to do something similar to what was done at Ronan Point when a Government decision changed the whole code of practice for those constructions?

Mr. Page: There is no parallel between this case and Ronan Point. The cost of the complex interchange leading to the tunnel was shared between the three parties concerned and the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee is a little better off than most local authorities, because under the loan conditions it can borrow 75 per cent. of the amount of the share which it has to bear.

Local Authorities (Private House Building)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider encouraging local authorities to build houses for sale to applicants on housing waiting lists wishing to purchase.

Mr. Amery: I am anxious that there should be a good supply of new homes for would-be owner-occupiers, particularly those with modest incomes, and I am accordingly encouraging local authorities in the pressure areas to do all they can to that end by releasing land for private building. Private builders and local authorities should co-operate in this objective and I am convinced that private builders will do the job most efficiently. Nevertheless if a demand exists which cannot be or is not being met by private builders, I would be prepared to consider proposals from a local authority to build for sale.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but it puts the onus upon local authorities. I had hoped that now that the building industry was concentrating more on the top end—that is, on the more expensive type of house—the Minister would recognise that it was necessary to give encouragement to local authorities, not by a direct labour force arrangement but by going out to contract to the building industry to look after the lower end of the market. I hope my right hon. Friend will feel that he can encourage that type of provision.

Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend and I have tried, in a number of speeches that I have made, to make it clear to local authorities that if they cannot get developers to do the job I am prepared to entertain proposals for building for sale.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many local authorities are listed in his Department as wishing to undertake this kind of activity?

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question on that, I shall look into the numbers concerned.

Mr. Maddan: Will my right hon. Friend say that he will not allow any local authority which is not willing to sell council houses to start arrangements of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones)?

Mr. Amery: That supplementary question goes a bit wider than my hon. Friend's Question. I am all for local


authorities selling council houses. I want them to encourage the maximum amount of private house-building by private development, but if, for one reason or another, the private developer does not come in, I am prepared to entertain suggestions for building for sale.

Mr. John Fraser: Without conceding for a moment that any contribution can be made by selling council houses, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that once a council house in a stress area is sold it is probably lost for a long time for the purpose of helping the housing problem? Will he consider amending the present arrangement whereby a local authority has the option to repurchase a house by extending the period from five to at least 10 years?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman has voiced one of the greatest illusions that is current in this field. If the tenant of a council house is not allowed to buy his house, the odds are that he will go on living in it and in that case no vacancy is created.

Professional Footballers

Mr. Ashton asked: the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the official discussions he had with the Professional Footballers Association and their employers' representatives concerning their conditions of employment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I discussed the possibility of appeals by professional players against sentences passed on them for offences on the field of play. These talks were against the background of the Industrial Relations Act and the draft Code of Industrial Practice. Whilst I am naturally very interested in this matter, the primary responsibility of course lies with the Football Association which, I understand, is giving consideration to the problem.

Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he had that discussion in September and that nothing has happened since? This is a highly controversial major sporting issue of the day about which the football public are totally dissatisfied. Will the Minister say to these Victorian employers that they must introduce a system of fair play and justice for their employees?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman wants compulsory intervention by the Government into the affairs of two highly responsible sports organisations which, in my judgment, are capable of managing their own affairs.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not compulsory intervention that is the issue but that justice is done in this case.

Council Housing

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for housebuilding in the public sector, and what is the yearly total for 1971.

Mr. Amery: In Great Britain in the public sector 12,000 permanent dwellings were started and 12,800 completed in October, 1971. The year's total cannot be stated yet.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the year's total will show that council house-building is lower than at any time since 1961 when the Conservatives were last in power? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman got his social priorities into the right order and told his Department to double the amount of council house-building that is due to take place in 1972 rather than instruct it in wasting time preparing dud Questions for his back-bench stooges?

Mr. Amery: May I inform the hon. Gentleman—and I assure the House that I did not plant this Question with him, although it may seem like it from the reply—that the figure for October for public sector starts is 12,046, as against 11,665 for September, and it has therefore gone up by 3 per cent.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not there bound to be a further serious decline in council house-building next year because of the fall in starts this year? Second, will not the decline be even worse because the Government are to double council rents, which will mean that many families in serious housing need will be unable to go into council houses even after rebate, if they get it?

Mr. Amery: I am sorry—no doubt it was because he was mulling over his supplementary question—that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my last


reply. I have just announced that there was a 3 per cent. increase in October compared with the figure for September.

Mr. Allaun: One month.

Mr. Tebbit: In order that the—

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but the Minister knows very well that the year's figures are down, and therefore it is cheating—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Tebbit.

Mr. Tebbit: So that we can get rid of some of this irrational hatred of hon. Members opposite of the number of houses being built for private ownership exceeding those being built for municipal tenancies, could we not have a survey conducted sometime into the number of people who are anxiously waiting to buy a house as well as some of the puffed-up figures produced for local elections of the number of people on waiting lists?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend has made a most interesting and positive suggestion, and I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Crosland: Only a minor civil servant could have planted that supplementary question.
I am delighted, I may say, by the October figures, but, judging from the figures in today's papers, quoting the latest statistics from the Department, is it not the case that the third quarter's figures are still down on the second quarter? Are we not in a period when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to increase public investment in every sector in which this is possible? Why has not the Minister been able to persuade the Chancellor to do something for this one critical field of housing?

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman has asked a number of additional questions which do not arise directly from the Question put down to me. I should be glad to answer them if he would put them on the Order Paper.

Land Availability

Mr. H. Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the response of local authorities to his circular 10/70, Land Availability for Housing.

Mr. Graham Page: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 8th December.—[Vol. 827, c. 1287.]

Mr. Boardman: In view of the stubborn refusal of many local authorities to release sufficient land, will the Minister impress upon local authorities that the maintenance of scarcity values is the biggest single factor in the current exorbitant price of land and that they are responsible?

Mr. Page: Of course, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the solution to rising prices is an increase in the supply of building land, but the new arrangements for loan sanction and the working parties which I described in an answer last Wednesday will help, and in the longer term the regional strategies will identify areas for major growth. Difficulties arising out of planning are being corrected. My Department's regional offices are arranging discussions with local planning authorities and builders to find out where the difficulties arise. The Action Group on London Housing recently set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is making land availability its first priority.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is not the greatest contribution that could be made to this very real problem a speeding-up of the machinery of town planning, so that plans do not so often reflect conditions which are past rather than the existing conditions for which they are supposed to cater?

Mr. Page: I wholly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. We are pursuing as quickly as possible the new form of planning laid down in the 1968 Act for the structure plan and the local plans. Not until we get some to replace some of those which are now 10 or 15 years old can we really see ahead in land availability.

Mr. Cant: Does not the speeding up of planning lie very much in the hands of central Government, with the fixing of a date of a public inquiry and then the determination of the result of that inquiry? This can take far longer than any delay in which local authorities are involved.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member enables me to say that I have given instructions that in future my Department should be tough over dates fixed for hearings and that the parties should have to appear before the inspector to justify the request for an adjournment.

Ordnance Survey Committee

Mr. Carol Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the names of those serving on his committee on the Ordnance Survey; and whether he has yet received their report.

Mr. Peter Walker: The committee which has inquired into the organisation and operation of the Ordnance Survey was composed entirely of officials. In accordance with the usual practice I will not state their names. I have received the committee's report and I am considering the recommendations.

Mr. Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he give an assurance that in any consideration of the future of the Ordnance Survey there is no intention to hive off any section of it, particularly on the map publishing side, and selling it to private interests?

Mr. Walker: I visited the Ordnance Survey recently and was impressed by the work and spirit of the organisation. The object of this was to look into its management structure and how it could be improved.

Mr. Costain: Will this committee have power to consider the problem of the building industry's conversion to the metric system and the difficulties of using metric measurements for buildings on imperial land surveys?

Mr. Walker: This is a problem which the Ordnance Survey people themselves are considering.

Housing Improvement Grants

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses will have been improved in 1971–72 as a result of the increased improvement grants; and how this compares with the number of houses improved in 1969–70 and 1970–71.

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many

private houses will have been improved in 1971–72 as a result of the increased improvement grants; and how this compares with the number of houses improved in 1969–70 and 1970–71.

Mr. Channon: rose—

Hon. Members: Planted Questions.

Mr. Channon: Applications for the improvement of 35,000 local authority dwellings in England and Wales were approved in the first seven months of 1971. This compares with 49,000 in the whole of the year 1970–71 and 29,000 in 1969–70. The corresponding figures for privately-owned houses are 81,000, 116,000 and 83,000.

Mr. Finsberg: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I make it clear that someone with 22 years' experience in local government does not need to listen to silly jibes by hon. Members opposite? Will my hon. Friend ensure that local authorities are forced to put a proportion of this work out to private contract and do not do it all by direct labour?

Mr. Channon: I will certainly note what my hon. Friend says. I have not had any evidence that this is a substantial problem.

Mrs. Renée Short: While one accepts that it is of course very important to preserve our old stock of houses, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the major problem is to build enough houses for rent? Will he now have a shot at answering the question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) put to the Minister for Housing and Construction, which the right hon. Gentleman ducked and refused to answer?

Mr. Channon: It is important that we should not only improve houses but that we should have an adequate amount of houses for both rent and sale.

Slum Clearance

Mr. Benyon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that those local authorities with acute slum clearance problems are tackling the situation adequately.

Mr. Amery: The Housing Finance Bill will provide increased financial


assistance to slum clearance on a scale not hitherto known. I accordingly wrote —on 16th November—to over 90 authorities with a substantial number of unfit houses asking them to see if they could clear these even more quickly than already planned.

Mr. Benyon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not extraordinary that in some of these areas there are large numbers of building workers unemployed? Will he confirm that there is no financial obstacle whatever to the employment of these men by the councils concerned?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I can confirm that there is no financial obstacle whatever. As my right hon. Friend and I have said on more than one occasion, there is no reason why local authorities should not clear the backlog of slums in the next decade.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the City of Manchester has one of the worst slum problems in the entire country and that my constituency has one of the worst slum problems in Manchester? Is he further aware that the newly-elected Labour council's attempts to clear the backlog left by the incompetence of its Tory predecessor will have an enormous burden of £1 million placed upon it if the Housing Finance Bill becomes law?

Mr. Amery: I am sorry that the previous Administration should have left the hon. Gentleman's constituency with such a deplorable situation after six years in office. However, I assure him that our new housing subsidy slum clearance proposals will help in a way which Manchester has never been helped in the past.

Mr. Tebbit: Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from local authorities suggesting that they are dissatisfied with the provisions of the Housing Finance Bill so far as they affect the proposals for improved slum clearance subsidy?

Mr. Amery: I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that the proposals for slum clearance subsidy have been universally welcomed by all local authorities.

Mr. Freeson: The Minister has indicated, not for the first time, that there is no reason why local authorities should not clear all outstanding slums—about 2 million of them—in the coming decade. Will he confirm that the Statistical and Research Division of his Department has estimated that to achieve this objective there is a need for about 174,000 housing starts by local authorities per year throughout the next 10 years? If this figure is confirmed, will he give us some indication when the Government intend to reach anywhere near that figure of local authority housing starts?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman has characteristically built up an interesting mathematical case. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would have said what we have said unless we had considerable confidence in the forecasts which we have made.

COMPANIES ACT, 1967 (SECTION 109)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

126 and 127. Mr. CANT: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what date his Department discovered that reports under Section 109 of the Companies Act, 1967, had fallen into the hands of unauthorised persons; what action has been taken in each case; and with what results;

(2) on what date his Department discovered that recommendations for action under Section 109 of the Companies Act, 1967, had fallen into the hands of unauthorised persons; what action has been taken in each case; and with what results.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With permission. I will now answer Questions 126 and 127.
My Department discovered on 15th October that, two days previously, a document recording the result of an examination under Section 109 of the books and documents of a company, together with suggestions for further investigation, had been sent in error to the company concerned. An immediate inquiry was instituted and it was established that


this had been done by a junior member of the staff of the Department who misunderstood the instructions given to her. Appropriate action has been taken both in respect of the officer concerned and to prevent any similar mistake being made again. As regards the document, the managing director of the company acknowledges having received it and says that he sent it to his legal adviser who has, however, informed the Department that it did not reach him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I do not regard its recovery as sufficiently important to justify the expenditure that would be involved in further steps to trace it.

Mr. Cant: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, despite the hilarity with which his statement was greeted, some of us are extremely concerned by revelations of this kind? Does he also accept that there are rumours afoot that this particular company or other companies controlled by organised crime syndicates have been operating in this particular sphere and using a certain amount of influence? Will he set up a tribunal of inquiry into this area of operation in his Department to prevent leaks like this and the Vehicle and General leak, or any others of that kind?
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my feelings of irony that, at the very time when he asked whether he could make this statement to the House on the basis of my Written Questions, I have been barred by the Principal Clerk of the Table Office from presenting any further Questions on companies or company law on various grounds which I need not put before the House?
Finally, may I have his assurance that no pressure was brought to bear—I am excluding his charming and friendly Minister for Industry—by the civil servants in his Department or the Table Office to prevent me carrying out what I regard as my duties in this House in future?

Mr. Davies: I should make it very clear that this was not a leak in the sense that the hon. Gentleman inferred it might have been. It was a clear clerical error, no more than that. It should be registered clearly that that is so.
Regarding the carrying out of a major inquiry, this is already within the framework of a Section 109 inquiry, which is

currently in course. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot reveal the details of that inquiry.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that he is being debarred in some way from putting Questions which he would wish to put. I assure him that that is no part of my act. It is a question which I am not in a position to answer. It clearly is not specifically for me, though I do feel strongly about it in view of the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in being prepared to take these Questions today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing an important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the immediate exertion of new and stronger diplomatic pressures on the Government of the Republic of Ireland to control the activities of organisations using the Republic of Ireland as a base for inciting and mounting armed aggression against a part of the United Kingdom".
I feel that I need make no apology for raising this matter. Hon. Members in all parts of the House know that the lives of the constituents of myself and my hon. Friends are in almost hourly danger.
This matter deserves urgent consideration because of the mounting anger at the assassination, brutal bombings of civilians and the killing of soldiers, particularly in recent days. In the period immediately after the assassination of Senator Barnhill in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said that it was no secret that an I.R.A. gang had been operating in the area for several months from their safe haven across the border. As he said, this may be the fifth murder that they have committed since mid-September this year. Yet, despite the lip-service to justice and public order paid by the Southern Ireland authorities, this gang still move about with apparent impunity just a few miles across the border. That is the situation we are facing now.
Today The Times carries a photograph of an I.R.A. Press conference held openly in Dublin. That photograph depicts one person who escaped from the prison in Belfast who said of his own interrogation that he had been accused of four murders,


including the killing of three soldiers. Yet this Press conference, which was held openly, is one of a long series which the organisation has been holding openly in the Republic of Ireland.
At the present time, 94 people who are believed to have been involved in terrorist activities are currently in the Republic of Ireland. Extradition orders have been sought against those whose whereabouts are definitely known and whose offences are contrary to the law of the Republic as well as of the United Kingdom.
There have also been 22 incidents in the last three months of firing at security forces across the land frontier at which Eire soldiers or gardai have been reported present but inactive. There have been widely publicised rescruiting meetings in different parts of the Republic to obtain members to conduct illegal operations against the United Kingdom. Money has been openly solicited for the same purpose. There is virtually a gelignite trail across the border.
I submit, finally, that this is a matter which is urgent, because if the anger of ordinary men and women is to be restrained these activities must be curbed, and the pressure can come only from here. I submit this application with a sense of urgency, because I believe that the lives of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and of British soldiers are at stake and that this matter should be discussed at once.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
the immediate exertion of new and stronger diplomatic pressures on the Government of the Republic of Ireland to control the activities of organisations using the Republic of Ireland as a base for inciting and mounting armed aggression against a part of the United Kingdom.
As I repeatedly say to the House, for me this is a purely procedural decision; it bears no relation to the merits of the case, nor does any refusal of mine reflect in any way upon the sincerity of the hon. Member who has asked for the leave of the House or on the importance of the matter. I have simply to say

whether it is a matter properly to be debated under Standing Order No. 9 or in some other way.
I regret that I cannot grant the hon. Gentleman's application.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you clarify the rules a little with regard to these applications? I understand that the moving itself is a point of order and, therefore, cannot be interrupted.
The other day I sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a question concerning Rhodesia. You, Mr. Speaker, stopped me in the second sentence and said that I must not make the speech which I would make if I were granted the Adjournment. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) a speech of about seven minutes' duration and of considerable eloquence which was almost exactly the same speech as the hon. Gentleman would have made had he been granted leave. What is the rule as to the form in which the submission must be made?

Mr. Speaker: The rule is that, strictly speaking, the application is not a point of order. It is an application to the Chair. It is the practice and the precedent that hon. Members should not seek to make the type of speech which they would make if their application were successful with the leave of the House.
The Chair is in a certain difficulty. There are certain matters upon which the whole House feels very deeply, and perhaps in such cases the Chair allows rather more latitude than it otherwise would.
However, I should certainly deprecate the practice of hon. Members taking the opportunity of applications under Standing Order No. 9—I point out that I must allow hon. Members to make their applications—to go too deeply into the merits of a particular case.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That this House do meet on Wednesday, 22nd December at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday, 22nd December do adjourn till Monday, 17th January.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I oppose the Motion because there are three issues of the greatest importance on which the House should have answers before it rises for the Christmas Recess.
First, during the course of the exchanges on the business announcement last week I asked the Leader of the House whether the Secretary of State for Social Services was to make a statement about heating allowances for pensioners, which had been requested by hon. Members on this side during the debate on pensions. I wanted to know whether the Government would agree to paying additional allowances during the coming months. The Leader of the House said that he would ask his right hon. Friend whether a statement was to be made.
No such statement has been made. Yet everyone knows that old-age pensioners will have a very bleak Christmas unless they receive additional support by way of financial allowances from the Government, either in the form of a heating allowance or in the form of an immediate Christmas bonus.
The Trades Union Congress has rightly urged that there should be an immediate increase in the old-age pension and has argued that this would assist with the reflation of the economy, would create employment, and would also be very beneficial to retirement pensioners, who are undoubtedly suffering greatly, because the increase which they have had has been gobbled up in the space of a few weeks.
Second, the House is about to rise for the Christmas Recess just at a time when Britain is heading towards a figure of 1 million unemployed. It would be a disgrace if the House were to agree to adjourn before getting clear assurances from the Government that they intend to take further measures to help solve the unemployment problem.
Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that as from next April £130 million of post-war credits

will be repaid. The Chancellor did not say until I pressed him that this was one of the proposals made by the Trades Union Congress when it met the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer two weeks ago to discuss the whole question of unemployment and the economy.
The House and the country have a right to know what answers the Government gave to the proposals of the Trades Union Congress and what steps the Government are taking to deal with the unemployment problem.
We heard today from the Minister for Housing and Construction that there has been an increase in building. Marginally, that is correct, but in my area over 8,000 building operatives are unemployed, and over 3,000 of them are in the City of Liverpool. We also have skilled carpenters, joiners, plumbers, bricklayers and other highly-skilled workers unemployed when there are people in Liverpool and in the area surrounding it who are crying out for houses, people who want work and at the same time need accommodation. It would be a disgrace for the House to rise before having clear statements from the Government as to what they intend to do about the housing programme and the problem of unemployed building workers.
We have had two statements from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who deals with the Common Market negotiations. He said in the House that Britain would not accept conditions that were not acceptable to the other applicants; but the Government have now told us that they are prepared to accept less than the Norwegian Government were prepared to accept on fishing rights and the fishing agreement. It would be disgraceful if the House agreed to rise without having the right to vote on the fishing agreement. I am sure that none of my hon. Friends, whether they are in favour of entering the E.E.C. in principle or are opposed to it, could agree to allow the House to rise before it had pronounced on the fishing agreement. I think that there has been a sell-out in that agreement; the Government have given away far too much. There is a need for us to debate the agreement and take a decision in the House.
Certainly the Government should not sign the Treaty of Accession on 12th


January—which happens to be my birthday; many strange things happen on 12th January. I should hate to see the Government signing the Treaty then without the House having had an opportunity to discuss the agreement and matters connected with it.
For the three basic reasons that I have given, I oppose the Motion. Unless we get clear and definite answers from the Leader of the House we should divide. So often when we say these things we are given a half-hearted statement and then do not vote, but I am not joking.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: First, I should like to say a word of appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House because the debate is taking place in genuinely unimpeded circumstances. The corresponding debate in July became something of a travesty, certainly in regard to Northern Ireland. We were then obliged so to arrange our affairs that we treated the affairs of Northern Ireland as though they were a left-over that had to be squeezed in by one dodge or another. We have been spared that indignity today, and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) was unable to gain his Standing Order No. 9 debate, I hope very much that my right hon. Friend is seized of the anxiety, which is not confined to this side of the House, that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary returns from his talks in Northern Ireland the House is given every opportunity before it rises to subject his statement to sustained examination.
It is not the affairs of Northern Ireland that have persuaded me to take part in the debate but a subject that is thought to be somewhat esoteric but is of considerable immediate relevance and longer-term consequence—whether this country is to return to a system of fixed exchange rates. The reason why I believe it is particularly legitimate to raise the matter on the Motion is that I suspect that the vital discussions that will determine whether we are to continue with the present floating exchange rate will take place during the recess. My grounds for so believing are to be found in yesterday's HANSARD, where my right hon. Friend the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer is reported as saying in reply to Questions by several hon. Members:
I leave tomorrow for a further meeting in Washington…while I hope for a settlement at Washington"—
if that happens, my right hon. Friend can share the limelight here with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the important issues with which they are dealing—
I should not be unduly surprised if there had to be a further meeting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1971; Vol.828, c. 252.]
My right hon. Friend is not travelling too hopefully. My anxiety is that a further meeting will take place and that decisions will be formulated before 17th January, before the House has had an opportunity to give its considered judgment on the matter.
It would be inappropriate to take the time of the House to argue the merits of the case, and I do not propose to do so. But the House is entitled to ask for time to consider, for example, the following statement recently made by the C.B.I. in evidence which it submitted to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It said:
The uncertainties for trade and investment arising from the policy of 'floating' sterling are not such as to make it necessary to return to fixed parities.
I make no comment upon that interesting evidence.
The House should also have time to debate the interesting evidence submitted through the correspondence columns of the Financial Times by Mr. W. F. J. Batt, manager of the International Money Desk of the National Westminster Bank. He wrote:
With the occasional minor exception of Japanese Yen, my department has been able to meet every demand from our customers who wish to obtain cover in the major specified currencies at very reasonable rates. No bank which runs an adequate forward book should have difficulty in providing cover to exporters or importers; we shall continue so to do.
I have read that because it is possible to quote evidence from Sir Leslie O'Brien and the banking fraternity throughout the Western world to suggest that trade and industry would grind to a halt if we were not obliged to return to the disciplines of a fixed exchange rate. Men who have to deal with these matters in the real world, rather than in the


fantasies of the international bankers, are submitting contrary and more compelling evidence, and the House should have time to consider it.
Perhaps the most interesting evidence the House should have time to consider and discuss before this vital decision is taken is that submitted by Mr. Maxwell Stamp in his publication the Moorgate and Wall street Review, a highly esteemed magazine. I have not the faintest idea what Mr. Stamp's politics are—[Interruption.]—I do not normally expect to find myself quoting him to suit my book. He has always argued in most temperate terms, and he has stated, in the latest Review:
If we go back to fixed parities we shall be lucky if we avoid a world slump".
Any hon. Member conscious of the nearly 1 million unemployed will properly pay regard to words of such solemnity. He goes on to say:
but certainly we shall not avoid a series of currency crises at various times in the future.
That is the situation as he sees it if we return to a system of fixed parities.
Hon. Members have had other occasions to consider, in the context of British membership of the E.E.C., what fixed parities can do in the context of the common agricultural policy and the regional policy of the E.E.C. Hon. Members have had the opportunity to consider the contradictions and the quite unacceptable losses of national manœuvre, if not national sovereignty, contained in the Werner Plan, which must rest upon fixed parities. No one can doubt, whatever may be the technicalities of this subject, that the longer-term social, economic and political consequences make it one of the most important decisions that could be undertaken by this Government. My anxiety is that the House shall take part in the policy formulation and, above all, that it shall have a chance to make its voice heard before whatever final decision is taken at these international gatherings which may determine the subject.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian): I had always thought that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) was a man of considerable imagination, but his powers must be failing if he cannot divine the politics of Mr. Maxwell Stamp.
The subjects which I have given notice to the Leader of the House that I wish to raise are of less immediate importance than the matters raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on unemployment, which must be at the forefront of the minds of any of us from the North.
First, what are the right hon. Gentleman's plans for debating, and will he give an assurance about, the report of Lord Rothschild and his Committee? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) has already said at Question Time, this report, whatever one thinks of it, is in its subject the most controversial of modern times and the future of many individuals is raised in question in it. Worried people are coming to all Members of Parliament to ask, "What is my future?"
The immediate situation is that the views of the learned societies have to be sent in by 14th January. But the report was published only in November, although, of course, it may have been prepared back in May. This situation makes consultation very difficult. I understand that there is to be a debate in another place on 26th January, after which decisions may be made. I ask for an assurance that we in the House of Commons are to have an opportunity to express our views on a highly controversial report.
Indeed, the notion that somehow we can shuttle a whole lot of over-40 scientists into the administrative Civil Service after their best days of research are finished—which is the idea that Lord Rothschild seemed to be putting forward to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee last night—is so absurd as to raise questions about the judgment of a man who has a key position in the Government machinery.
The right hon. Gentleman also has some explaining to do about our being regaled by a public fight between the Secretary of the Cabinet, Sir Burke Trend, and the Chairman of the Capability Unit of the Cabinet, Lord Rothschild. It is almost without parallel that two of the key figures in the Downing Street machine seem to be squabbling with each other in the pages of The Times. The time has


come for an explanation for this. I find it unedifying and take no joy in it.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I will tell the hon. Gentleman now. He says that there is squabbling in the pages of The Times. The truth is that an article was written in The Times which, I must tell the hon. Gentleman from my personal knowledge, has no foundation in fact. I ought to know and I do know, and I hope that he will take that from me.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, I do take it from the right hon. Gentleman since he is a truthful man. I was going to say—and perhaps I should not have done so—that an article like that can only be leaked by some party; someone must have an interest in an article like that. The right hon. Gentleman is a truthful man and I accept what he says. I think that there should be some explanation by The Times, then, as to how this sort of thing appeared.
Secondly, there is the question of the Vintner Committee, which is a committee consisting of Mr. Vintner himself, Sir John Hill, the head of the Atomic Energy Authority, and Sir Stanley Brown, of the Central Electricity Generating Board, to consider the future of the nuclear power industry. I have sent the right hon. Gentleman an article which bears out rumours that some of us have been hearing for some time. Again, I can only use the word "leaked", because either they are with foundation or they are not. I do not think that these things appear by themselves. The rumours and the article were to the effect that there is to be a central decision that in future this nation will go American in nuclear equipment and installations, and that the decision is to be taken quickly. I would be greatly relieved if these stories were denied, but this article appeared in the serious Press; indeed, not only there, because there is a "grapevine" in these affairs.
There is talk that we are to give up our advanced gas-cooled reactor and go American. Some of us hope that there will be discussion in this House on the merits of the steam generating heavy water reactor and hope that consideration will be given to the installation

of these reactors at Skateness by the Moray Firth. The essential point is that, with our history in nuclear development, we must not go American without discussion of the whole issue in the House of Commons.

Mr. Fred Peart: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the Leader of the House agrees as well and will say something about it today and whether there are inaccuracies in Mr. Keith Richardson's article in the Sunday Times.
The Prime Minister told us yesterday that discussions were going on with, as he put it, the Government of Mr. Chou En-Lai on our future relations with the People's Republic of China and particularly over the question of Taiwan. Any hon. Member who comes back from travels should not give a travelogue, but I have had the good fortune to have been in China for three weeks, along with people of varying domestic political complexions, many of whom do not agree with my views of domestic politics. I refer to the trade delegation of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. All 20 of us agreed that serious, sustained business between Britain and the People's Republic of China will not get off the ground to the extent that all of us would wish, unless we come off the fence on the issue of Taiwan and recognise it for what it is. I speak as a person who argued toughly with the Chinese on many things, but on this issue we have to recognise that the island of Taiwan—or, as we know it, Formosa—has been part of the Chinese empire for 3,000 years and until 1895 was part of China. The present régime in Formosa or Taiwan is the most oppressive police régime in all Asia.
It is puzzling why, seemingly against the interests of Britain, we continue to say that Taiwan has indeterminate status. The sooner we recognise that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China the better it will be for the native Taiwanese. They will be better off as part of the People's Republic rather than being under the Chiang Kai-shek mainland rump. The sooner this happens the sooner will our relations with the People's Republic get on a firm footing, and this is something to which we ought to give attention, over the next few weeks.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: Apart from Northern Ireland, nothing lies more heavily on the minds of many of my constituents today than the tragic situation between India and Pakistan. Plainly, there will be developments during the recess, indeed before it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us assurances on two points before we pass this Motion.
The first point has to do with peacemaking. I entirely support the posture which the Government have taken over the last few months, inside and outside the United Nations, and as between India and Pakistan, in what is a very delicate situation. There is news on the tape that apparently a cease-fire in East Pakistan has been asked for by the Pakistan commander and may be imminent. That is good news. In any case, we hope there will be progress as a result of the latest Anglo-French initiative in the Security Council.
I am concerned, in case these developments do not work out as we hope and in case there is continued deadlock in the United Nations over a total ceasefire, that the time will soon come for some Commonwealth initiative. Many of us have felt during these tragic months that one of the worst features of the situation was that it has developed between two major Commonwealth countries with whom this country has had long historic ties, and yet apparently Commonwealth members, individually and collectively, have not succeeded in preventing war or, up to now, in bringing it to an end. Depending on developments at the United Nations and elsewhere between the two contestant countries, will my right hon. Friend say that at some opportune moment in the near future the whole weight of the Commonwealth will, if necessary, be thrown behind peacemaking efforts to see that the fighting is brought to a halt once and for all?
The second point on which I hope we shall have some reassurance is the question of relief and reconstruction. Here again, I am raising this not in any spirit of criticism but rather in the hope that the Government will carry on the good work they have been doing. We recognise that this country has been one of the leaders in organising relief and aid in

the last few months since the trouble developed in East Pakistan. We have nothing to be ashamed of; we wish other countries had done more. Equally, we recognise that even worse problems may arise after the fighting stops, and that the needs may be more urgent still.
Here again, I hope my right hon. Friend can tell us that once an end to the fighting is in sight the Government will be ready to take whatever further initiatives they may find opportune to organise within the international community another massive operation of relief and help to the affected areas on an even greater scale than has been maintained in the last few months.
I look forward to hearing something from my right hon. Friend about the Government's intentions during the next four or five weeks.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Every hon. Member has listened with interest and sympathy as well as understanding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), and I hope that he will not think it discourteous of me or that I do not have the same feelings about this terrible tragedy if I do not comment further on his speech, because it is not my intention to talk about the great problems that will follow a settlement of this tragic war. Instead, I want to talk about a more domestic matter. As the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) mentioned, there are nearly 1 million people unemployed. It is likely that when the figures are announced tomorrow there may be over 1 million and my constituency has, unfortunately, more than its fair share of that number.
If, 12 months ago, the Government had listened to the advice they were being given then, many hundreds of thousands of people who will spend a very unhappy Christmas because they have been denied the dignity and self-respect which comes from work would not have been unemployed. It is ironic that Jarrow—known best for its pre-war sufferings, the town which aroused the social conscience of this nation—should have become the first victim of the Government's "No help for lame ducks" policy. Palmers Yard at Hebburn, which we took steps to save when in Government, was one of the first


to suffer. Almost within hours of the Government being elected they had decided that Palmers should receive no blood transfusion, no help. It was a lame duck and therefore nearly 1,000 men who had given their lives to one of the most famous yards in the world were cast upon the scrap heap.
From that day, with one exception, in each month the unemployment figures in my constituency have risen. I learned this morning that there are now over 2,500 unemployed, and that is not the total because people living on that part of the coastline in my constituency lying between South Shields and Sunderland will register either at the South Shields or the Sunderland exchange. Therefore, the unemployment figures in my constituency must be well over 3,000, and I say that this is indefensible. I know that the Government, having found that they could not persuade their friends whom they love—the private investors—to invest money and step up economic activity, have had to turn to those whom they detest, the nationalised industries, to get the investment programme going.
Although the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refused to listen to my pleas in respect of Palmers, I have no doubt that my pleas, and the pleas of my right hon. and hon. Friends, plus the pressure of the trade unions, have induced him to bring forward the Ince power station programme, and I know that my constituency will reap some benefit from getting part of that contract. But all that it will do is stave of redundancies which would have taken place in the next two or three months.
It has been put about in the Press this week that Reyrolle-Parsons, the biggest single employer in my constituency, is about to declare several hundred more redundancies. I do not know whether this is true. I believe that today the management and unions are meeting and presumably, therefore, there is some truth in the rumour that several hundred more workers in the heavy electrical engineering industry are to be paid off. That would be intolerable because everybody knows that there is work to be done and which should be done, and if it is done now it will be cheaper than doing it in two or three years' time.
We are thankful for the Ince power station programme, but I should like the Government to bring forward the construction of the Sizewell B power station which they put back 12 months ago. If this power station is delayed for a year or two or three years it will cost the Central Electricity Generating Board more than it would have cost had it been built now, because the rate of inflation is such that it will probably cost 10, 20 or 30 per cent. more with each year's delay. In view of the unemployment situation and the pending unemployment of people working in the heavy electrical engineering industry, if the Government gave the go-ahead for Sizewell B it would be a godsend.
I therefore hope that the Government will seriously consider bringing forward the construction of the Sizewell B power station, which would give hope to a few thousand people who are living in despair because they do not know whether, next week or next month, they will still be in a job.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision on the Sizewell B power station is a matter not only of interest to his constituents but of national importance and is very much related to the exporting capacity of the nuclear power industry, which is one of the things at stake in the Vintner Committee's report?

Mr. Fernyhough: I appreciate that. But my hon. Friend will understand that those of us who have lived with the problem of unemployment for all our political lives—and as a consequence of the mistake which the electorate made in 1970 we now have the worst unemployment figures we have ever had even in Jarrow—will welcome anything which will help to reduce unemployment and which will give to the men and women concerned the dignity and self-respect which comes from earning their own living.
I am very concerned not only about the people who have become redundant but about those who have left school and who month after month walk the streets seeking jobs which do not exist. It is one thing for an adult, mature person to accept that it is part and parcel of working class experience to be put out of a job from time to time, but when


boys and girls, some of them with high educational qualifications, find that there is no place in society for them, I wonder whether we know what we are doing.
It is no good anybody saying that children and young adults are irresponsible if they go wrong; it is society which is irresponsible. It is society which condemns young people on the threshhold of life if it says, "There is no place for you". It does not matter which party is in power. Unless positions are found for these young people, then, as sure as night follows day, we shall subsequently have to build prisons for them. We cannot expect young people to act responsibly when, on taking their first step in the adult world, they find every door closed to them.
I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will tell me that the Government will take special steps to find work for the large number of young men and women under 18 years of age who are still unemployed in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that even during the period of office of the 1959–64 Administration I had need to take a deputation to the Minister to discuss this problem. It is still with us. The trouble is that today it is worse than it has ever been.
Later tonight my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) will raise the question of the Jarrow Slake. He will ask for all possible Government financial aid for the reclamation of about 100 acres of land which, we hope, once the reclamation has been completed, will be an attraction to outside industrialists and will enable a big industrial complex to be erected there, which would be a boon to my constituency. I know that the Government are increasing public expenditure on housing, hospitals—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Housing?

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes. We have had a 50 per cent. increase in my constituency in the grant towards modernisation, and so has every other development area. If a grant goes up from 50 to 75 per cent., that is a 50 per cent. increase.
There is still much work to be done, and the Government could do much to help, particularly in areas like the one I represent. The Government are the single

biggest customer of industry. If anybody wields real power, the Government do. It is they who give out the orders for almost everything one can think of—boots and shoes and clothing and furniture and guns and tanks and ships and bombs. One could go on, but the Government give the orders for all of them.
Why in the name of fortune the Government do not use their great spending capacity to twist the arms of the manufacturers to make them go to the development areas, or to say to them, that they will not otherwise have orders, I do not know, because this in the long term will be the only solution to the problems of the development areas. Either by this means the Government provide work in the development areas, or they will have to erect factories and decide what is to be produced, and man the factories themselves.
I have talked about the, roughly, 3,000 people unemployed in my constituency. There are 1 million unemployed in the country. The tragedy of tragedies is this —and it is a remarkable thing. If war were declared tomorrow, assuming it were conventional and on the pattern of previous wars, very few of those people would be unemployed in a matter of weeks from now. We would find them work. We would almost direct them.
What kind of society is it, again, which can find employment for its citizens for destructive purposes only, but can never find work for all of them for constructive purposes? It is ironical. Everybody says, "We cannot do it, because of the figures in the book". Figures in the book do not matter that much when there is a war on. Nobody worries about the figures in the book when there is a war on. Nobody says, "We cannot produce planes and tanks and guns and bombs and bullets because the figures in the book will not let us".
In wartime the only things which stop us from producing things which I have enumerated are lack of manpower or lack of material. If we have the manpower and the materials we marry them so as to produce the articles which the nation needs. And the goods which we produce we give away. We give them to other nations. It is true that other nations do not want to receive them. They would be glad to do without them.


Nevertheless, we give them away. With every blockbuster which we dropped on Germany we were giving the Germans our wealth, and giving them it for nothing. It is true they did not want to receive it, but the more we gave them the happier we were. Likewise, when they sent us their doodlebugs we did not want to receive them. But they were giving us their wealth, and the more they could give us the happier they were. What in the name of fortune prevents societies from organising production to meet the needs of people so that they may live rather than die when we give stuff away as we do in war? There must be an answer to this problem.
A lot of people say there is an age gap, that those of us who are older cannot talk to the young. I have never found this age gap. I understand what young people are thinking and I know what their feelings are. I make it perfectly clear that the present young generation are not going to be as tolerant as were their fathers and grandfathers. Unless we build a society which gives them an opportunity to live a useful and practical life they will turn against that society, and if enough of them turned that would be not only the end of this House but the end of democracy as we know it.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I think that it is not a bad thing that we have had such an exposition of the social problems of unemployment from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) before we break up for the Christmas Recess. What he has said has been listened to with great care and sympathy by both sides of the House. A month does seem a very long time for the Christmas Recess, but I think that as we look forward to the legislative programme which we shall have after January perhaps all of us may feel that we should be well advised to take some sleep when the opportunity arises. On the other hand, I think that the Leader of the House would not wish to have his Motion without consideration of some of the points which we feel should be looked into before we pass it.
The first and obvious one was the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark)

raised. I am sure that the whole House would wish that, despite the long recess, the Government will press on to make sure that law and order are restored completely in Northern Ireland and also that pressure is brought to bear where appropriate on the Government of the Republic.
The specific matter which I wish to impress on the Leader of the House is the question of the uncertainty which does exist at the present time in the shipyards of the Upper Clyde. This is a crisis which has been with us so very long as to bring most members of the public and the House to think that any new development is just one small part of an unending Scottish tale which will not have a conclusion at any time. We have at present many decisions which are imminent, and these are matters on which I hope we shall obtain some clarification before we break up for the recess, and I should be grateful for an assurance that no decisions which will be irreversible will be taken during the recess.
The position is that there are 7,500 men in the shipyards at the present time and many thousands of others whose employment indirectly is dependent on the shipbuilding industry. In a time when we have more than 100,000 unemployed in Scotland that matter, which affects their security, is of real concern in the Glasgow area.
I do not want in any way to discount the fact that since the July White Paper, in which was indicated that only, perhaps, 2,500 jobs would be saved, with the possibility of two yards surviving, there has been considerable progress. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the part he has played in the progress which has been made.
However, there are four uncertainties which exist at present—major ones which stern from the tragic loss to Scotland of Mr. Hugh Stenhouse, who was Chairman of Govan Shipbuilders, and whose tragic death has made the situation rather more depressing from the Clydeside's point of view. He will be greatly missed by the men in the shipyards and, therefore, throughout Scotland.
The first uncertainty is this. We had an indication in the White Paper that round about 2,500 jobs would eventually


be saved on the Upper Clyde. On 20th October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), said that he was now hopeful that there would be rather fewer redundancies than seemed likely at the time of the publication of the White Paper. The fact is that we are going into recess when the men on the Clydeside have no indication directly or indirectly as to what their future will be.
The second uncertainty is over Clydebank itself. The White Paper indicated that Clydebank could not be included in the new company which was to emerge. On the other hand, the Secretary of State indicated that the Government had not closed their mind to helping Clydebank, particularly if a private purchaser came along. Since then we have had many newspaper reports and other indications of outside interest, and in particular that an American firm is interested in Clydebank, but we have no definite news. I am not complaining about this because, obviously, such negotiations would be private, but the men in Clydebank are, of course, filled with uncertainty as to what will be their future.
The third matter is the position of the company itself, which the Secretary of State described as a vehicle of special Government support. The company's board is not complete. We have the absence of a chairman due to the death of Mr. Stenhouse. We have a company without a chairman, a company which has not been completed.
The fourth uncertainty is over the future of the Scotstoun division, and particularly the question that Connell's would not be included in the new company. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said on 20th October that he was prepared to extend the inquiry taking place to ensure that consideration would be given to the possible inclusion of Connell's but no guarantees were given. It was indicated then that the report should be available by the end of the year. Unfortunately, it seems that this may now not be possible.
There is urgency in all these problems. Just taking the Clydebank yard, work on the six vessels which are being completed there will finish in about June of next year. Big decisions on all these matters

are imminent, and I hope that the Leader of the House will give us an assurance that before the recess there will be a statement on what can be said at this stage, or, alternatively, that no irreversible decisions affecting the employment of the Clydeside workers will be made before the House resumes.
Finally, I suggest to the Leader of the House that he should propose to his colleagues in the Cabinet that perhaps the time is now appropriate for a visit to the Upper Clyde yard by a senior Cabinet Minister, perhaps the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or one of his colleagues. At the time of crisis a visit would not have been appropriate because feelings were strong and it was clear that such a visit might not necessarily achieve a great deal. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) could perhaps walk into a difficult situation and create order out of chaos. This is something of which he has experience and I pay tribute to him, but if we are looking for real progress and not simply seeking to get people to sit around having a cup of tea with photographers present, it is important that visits should be made at a time which is appropriate for achieving something worth while.
I think the hon. Member for West Lothian would agree, irrespective of our views about a visit in the past, that the general feeling and morale in the Upper Clyde is considerably better than it was at the time of the publication of the White Paper. This is to be seen from the negotiations the unions have had and from the public statements made by the shop stewards. All the indications are that feelings are much better now and it would be appropriate during the recess for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or one of his colleagues to make a visit to the Upper Clyde yards. I am sure that they would be well received, and any indications that they could give as to the future of this enterprise would be welcomed. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give me some assurances on these matters, which are of importance to Glasgow, the West of Scotland and my constituency.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: In this type of debate the


Leader of the House is apt to appear before us like Santa Claus with a sack of goodies, listening to requests which are placed before him. To take the analogy a little further, I suspect that the chance of success for our varying requests will vary with the size of our demands. Those who ask for more extragant items are likely to find their requests going up in smoke, and those who ask for modest items akin to a matchbox toy might be more successful.
My request is a modest but important one. Before we rise for the recess we should have a clearer statement on the working of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia Before 17th January, when the House resumes, presumably the Commission will be at work, and both the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that they would have something further to say on this matter.
During the debate on Rhodesia the Government's basic argument was that while the settlement arranged with Mr. Smith may not be perfect, the House, the country and Rhodesia should accept it because it was preferable for the African population to be left with a settlement of that kind than to be left with the uncertainty of continuing the status quo. I do not accept that argument, but I recognise that it is a tenable point of view.
If that is the argument which the Government are expecting this country and Rhodesia to accept, the fifth principle, the test of acceptability, becomes all-important. It is not for us to say which choice the people of Rhodesia should make; it is for them to do so. For this reason there has been grave disquiet about the limited composition of the Pearce Commission so far announced. I do not in any way question the quality or ability of the men concerned, but there remains some doubt about the fairness of that test of acceptability.
The Commission is headed by a distinguished judge who is on record as giving a minority legal opinion helpful to the Smith régime. Lord Harlech, again a man of great distinction, is nevertheless closely connected with the present Government. The third member is a

distinguished diplomat. This does not amount to a broad enough based Commission to be regarded as a fair body to carry out the test of acceptability. The Government still have to announce a further member or members of the Commission, and that should be done before the House rises for the recess.
The Government should also say something further about the conditions tinder which the Commission will work. Will the Commission, for example, be enabled to take evidence of opinion among the African majority, not just in Rhodesia itself, but in other countries such as this country and the United States of America? A considerable number of Rhodesians have left Rhodesia because of the present emergency. There are a considerable number in this country who fear under present circumstances to go back to Rhodesia and whose opinions should be sounded. They should be entitled to appear before the Commission. We do not know whether the Commission will hold meetings in this country and, say, in Zambia, as well as in Rhodesia.
There must also be some doubt as to whether the terms of reference of the Commission and its instructions are entirely right. I am puzzled that the Commission might have a dual role, both to commend the settlement and to assess its acceptability among the population. I should like clearer guidance as to what commendation the Commission will be expected to give and its role in this respect.
It is extremely important that we should know to what extent there will be political freedom and freedom of expression of opinion during the test of acceptability. According to the White Paper, access to broadcasting is, for example, to be limited to those parties which are already represented in the Rhodesian Parliament. That surely cannot be right. If there is to be a broad test of acceptability and the broadcasting of various points of view on the settlement, every point of view must be represented and not just that of those at present represented in the Rhodesian Parliament.
It is essential that we should be clear that there will be a complete lifting of censorship and that people will be allowed to distribute leaflets and points


of view on acceptability before the Commission starts its work.

Mr. Michael Foot: I do not want to anticipate what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) might be about to say, but has he seen the report which appears in today's newspaper, that when Mr. Smith was asked whether Mr. Nkomo would or might be released he said he was not interested in Mr. Nkomo at all? This is a shameful and shocking answer. I am sorry to have interrupted the hon. Gentleman, but that is an additional comment on what he was saying.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not seen that report, and the intervention was a welcome one. That is another matter, the question whether leaders of African opinion are to be free to distribute their views, hold meetings and have access to broadcasting. All this is of the highest importance if the Government's own standards of the test of acceptability are to be fulfilled. At the time of the Rhodesian debate we could not go into such detail in discussing the settlement, but the fifth principle has now become a matter of importance, and the House is entitled to have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on these matters before the recess and before the Pearce Commission starts its work.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) sought to move the Adjournment of the House earlier this afternoon to focus attention on the need for new and stronger diplomatic initiatives to be undertaken with the Southern Ireland Government. My hon. Friend is sorry that he cannot be here to pursue this matter, but I feel that this issue should be discussed as a matter of urgency before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess.
I know there is a breadth of views in this House on the subject of Northern Ireland, but equally I know there is a single view in this House as to the means and determination to root out violence and to deal with the men who use violence for political ends. On that matter I am sure the House speaks as one.
My hon. Friend referred briefly to a number of incidents which are particularly worrying to all of us. I propose to outline these incidents further at slightly greater length.
First, the newspapers today carry reports of the Press conference in Dublin held by the I.R.A. at which were present Mr. Martin Meehan, Mr. Tony Doherty and Mr. McCann, men who escaped from Belfast prison on 2nd December. Furthermore, the Chief of Staff of the Provisional I.R.A., Mr. John Stephenson, spoke at the conference. This is the latest of a long series of Press conferences organised and conducted by the I.R.A. which has been operating in a supposedly friendly country; it appears to operate openly and publicly in the Republic of Ireland.
Secondly, at the latest count, some 94 persons suspected of terrorist activities were believed to be in the Republic of Ireland. Extradition orders have been sought against a number of these men, but a number of the orders have not been executed. Therefore, these men are still operating freely.
Thirdly, there have been about 22 incidents on the Border in which the British Army has been involved, in which soldiers have been under gunfire from I.R.A. units in the South and in which Southern Irish police and army have stood idly by taking no action at all to stop the operation of gunmen.
Fourthly, there have been widely publicised meetings, notably in Drogheda and Letterkeeny at which members of the I.R.A. are being recruited and organised to take part in armed terrorist activities.
Fifthly, there are clear reports in many responsible parts of the Press and television pinpointing I.R.A. training camps in the South of Ireland where men have been training for armed aggression against a part of the United Kingdom.
Sixthly, there have also been many well-substantiated reports on television and in the Press of money being freely and openly colelcted in the streets for the purchase of arms to be used in I.R.A. activities.
Seventhly, figures have been given in this House that some 60 per cent. of the gelignite used in Northern Ireland has come from Southern Ireland, and the security authorities believe that the figure might well be higher than that because of


the difficulty of definite identification in all cases. In Northern Ireland steps are taken to control the use and distribution of gelignite. Certain steps have been taken recently in the South, but there is a great need for much tighter measures.
The burden of my remarks today is that Southern Ireland is being used as an I.R.A. holiday camp to launch attacks and aggression against a part of the United Kingdom. It is clear from the evidence that I have given to the House and from the remarks of Mr. T. E. Uttley in an excellent article in the Sunday Telegraph that the I.R.A. activities in Southern Ireland are fast geting entirely beyond the law. One can almost draw a comparison between Jack Lynch's Eire and King Hussein's Jordan. If the terrorist is permitted to operate beyond the law in a democratic society, that society's days are numbered unless the Government act firmly.
I am seeking firm action to impress on the Southern Irish Government that they have a responsibility to deal with the situation within their own borders. I feel certain that they can do very much more than they have done to date. I call for the maximum pressure to be exerted upon them. I hope that the Leader of the House in his reply will be able to give details of the diplomatic steps taken in the last 24 hours, which I greatly welcome; but I feel that new and stronger diplomatic pressures are constantly required to be exerted on the Southern Irish Government to get them to face their responsibilities. This is what I am calling for this afternoon.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I wish to raise two points. First, I should like to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on Northern Ireland. The campaign which is developing on the part of certain Unionist Members against the Republic of Ireland Government is an extremely dangerous one. If hon. Members opposite are not careful, they may create a situation in Southern Ireland which is far worse than they are painting at the moment—and which could be far more dangerous than the present situation.
I am not here as an apologist for Mr. Lynch and his Government. In fact, I have many criticisms of that Government, as I have of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. At the same time I believe that when the Government of the Republic of Ireland are trying to seek some form of political initiative which will go some way to meet the points made in the recent speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—and those who heard the speech by Mr. Lynch to the Parliamentary Press Gallery will have noted his conciliatory tone—it would be dangerous to develop a campaign which, although it appears to attack the I.R.A., is really aimed at attacking the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, I repeat that there are dangers in the situation.
I should also like to refer to the internal situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that when the Home Secretary returns from his visit to Northern Ireland—and it was essential that he should make such a visit—we shall hear some positive political initiative from our Government in regard to Northern Ireland. It is not sufficient to keep saying "We must solve the problem but nothing can be done until the Government are defeated". The failure of internment and also the fact that since the imposition of internment some 130 people have died in the six counties are indications of failure. This has also been reflected in the complete alienation between the two communities, and, unfortunately, the alienation between the public and British troops.
I was in the Bogside in August, 1969, and saw the expressions of relief on the faces of the Bogside people when the British troops first went in. However, we have all seen the deterioration which has now taken place. The whole House will condemn the vile assassination of a Northern Ireland senator. Unless the Government are prepared to take independent political initiatives, I feel that we shall not see any de-escalation of the situation.
Reference has been made already to the effect that the present situation is having on children. I have a report from the Association of Legal Justice of the arrest on the morning of 3rd December of nine boys from St. Thomas's Secondary School, Whiterock Road, Belfast. Nine


boys aged between 13 and 15 were arrested in their homes. They were held incommunicado for 12 hours, and were interrogated. That kind of incident does nothing to help; on the contrary, in my opinion, it damages and leads to the continuing deterioration of the situation.
I am second to none in my support for the elected representatives of the minority. I want to see those whom I believe to be the real representatives, the members of the Social Democratic Labour Party, brought into consultation with the Government to try to find some political solution. However, their credibility would be destroyed completely if they accepted such negotiations without some basic alteration in the policy of this Government, and that must centre round internment and the Government's attitude to it. A change in the control of security should be exercised from this Parliament. Unless it is done, I believe that we shall see a worsening of the situation. We are constantly told that we are getting on top of it and that it is getting better. In fact, the record shows that it is getting worse all the time.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman say the political initiatives that he has in mind which would not be regarded by the I.R.A. as a sign that its tactics of violence were paying off and which would not be concessions that advanced its cause?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman's argument is that if one takes any form of initiative it will have been taken because of the threat of the I.R.A. The situation is worsening all the time. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was not the I.R.A. which took the first steps in the escalation that we have seen. That happened when 600 Roman Catholic homes in Belfast were burned. It happened when the R.U.C. fired C.S. gas into Derry. It was those incidents which led to the gunmen gaining authority and getting the support of part of the population which turned to the I.R.A. in the deteriorating situation.
To say that one must not take any political initiative which would appear to be a sign of weakness is a recipe for disaster. If we do nothing, we may be left, after perhaps 12 years, with no one to negotiate with other than the I.R.A. There are elected representatives who

have the support of the minority, and they should be brought into the Northern Ireland Government so that negotiations can begin. However, that will not be done while internment is the barrier that it is at present.
My other point concerns a matter much nearer home. It is the problem of unemployment, which has been referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I live in and represent a constituency which is part of the Greater Manchester travel to work area. That area has a population of about 2½million people. The unemployment situation is rapidly approaching the proportions of the problem in many of the development areas. Week after week, more and more people are losing their jobs.
Last Saturday I attended a conference called by the local authorities in the South-East Lancashire conurbation area to discuss the possibility of keeping open the Irlam steel works. The conference was attended by representatives of the Greater Manchester area, including local authorities, trade unionists and six Members of Parliament, one of whom was the hon. Member forStretford (Mr. Churchill). An appeal was made to the Government not to ask but to tell the British Steel Corporation that the Irlam works should be kept open.
At that conference reference was made to what had happened at the River Don works at Sheffield. I support the magnificent fight which has been put up by trade unionists and Members of Parliament in that area. It was urged that similar tactics should be adopted at Irlam. However, representatives of the Irlam District Council and of the workers at Irlam said that they had tried every means to impress upon the Government and upon the British Steel Corporation that if that works were allowed to close the unemployment rate in the town would rise to between 9 and 10 per cent. They felt that perhaps what they had done had not been sufficiently spectacular and that they might have to take more positive action—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do so very reluctantly, especially as most hon. Members have kept their remarks extremely brief.


It is strictly within the meaning of order that speeches to this Motion should be related to reasons why it is inexpedient for the House to remain in recess for as long as the time proposed. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to overstep the bounds of order. He will realise that there are several other hon. Members who wish to speak to the Motion and that we have a programme before us which will last right through the night. Hon. Members should avoid prolonging their speeches on this Motion and should relate their remarks to the terms of the Motion. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It may be argued that I should have pulled up others before him. However, as they kept their remarks short, I was prepared to show some tolerance at the time.

Mr. Orme: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not preface my remarks by saying that this House should not adjourn until the matters which I have raised had been dealt with because I was trying to keep down the length of my speech. I am trying not to make a long political speech. I am dealing with specific issues which are pertinent to the House and the country at the present time.
I think that I have made clear the anxiety and urgency expressed at the conference to which I have referred. It was attended by more than 200 representatives. It must be taken in the context of an area which is suffering great hardship. The Hawker Siddeley aircraft firm is also under pressure and faces the possibility of large-scale redundancies. Firms are closing down at regular intervals, affecting the whole structure of an industrial area which many hon. Members present today have the honour to represent in this House.
I am arguing that this House should not adjourn until we have undertakings on Northern Ireland and on unemployment, in addition to answers to some of the specific aspects of the unemployment situation which others of my hon. Friends have raised.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I apologise for having missed the earlier part of the debate on this Motion. If I do not pursue the points raised by hon. Members who have spoken before me, I

hope that I shall be forgiven. I shall try not to be repetitious, and I shall do my best to be brief.
According to present plans, we are due to rise on Wednesday of next week. I remind the Leader of the House of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday, 6th December, to consult, through the usual channels, for a debate at a suitable moment on the tragic Indo-Pakistan war. With one day to be devoted to Adjournment topics we are left with only four potential days, and events are moving fast in the sub-continent. If we do not have a statement or a debate on these matters before we rise for the recess, force may have decided the issues before crucial matters which affect British interests can be debated in the House. The invocation by one Commonwealth country of a formal defence treaty with the Soviet Union in pursuit of its military objectives against another Commonwealth country with which we are allied has serious implications which we should discuss. The continued sale of British arms to India while she is engaged in offensive military operations, with Soviet material and political support, against Britain's C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. partner, Pakistan, which is also a Commonwealth member and which has received no weapons from Britain for many years, must cause widespread concern.
The Foreign Secretary said that the question of arms export licences to India was under constant review. I should welcome a statement on this issue before we rise for the recess, because the withholding of arms might be a factor in bringing pressure on India and her mentors, Poland and the Soviet Union, to accede to a United Nations resolution calling for a cease-fire and a political solution in accordance with the principles of self-determination in the disputed areas before wanton destruction and needless bloodshed, including communal vengeance, occur.
Furthermore, we would expect at least a statement before we rise on the progress to date on a cease-fire resolution in the United Nations and on actions by Her Majesty's Government on this. No one would want to prejudice delicate negotiations for a cease-fire or make them more difficult by anything we say in the House, but some of would wish, before the


recess, to dissociate ourselves from unhelpful statements such as that of the Leader of the Opposition, who criticised the Americans for their condemnation of India's attack on Pakistan, saying that he himself had been misled in doing so on 6th September, 1965, which is something which his chief official, Sir Algernon Rumbold, repudiated in The Times on 5th August, 1971. We now know why he did so. We should have the opportunity to debate this if we are to rise on Wednesday of next week, because it would seem that now, as then, the Indians and their friends will be content to accept a cease-fire only when they have obtained their military and political objectives.
If so, and if in the course of the next few days West Pakistan itself were jeopardised, surely such piecemeal self-aggrandisement by India would resemble the absorption of Czechoslovakia by Germany before the war, and the House would want to debate the matter urgently. A contingency of that sort must be seen to be publicly met by the Government.
A power which has openly avowed the intention of the unification of the subcontinent should not do so at the expense of another country which was itself a creature of this Parliament and the British Government.
These events are so urgent as to demand debate in the next few days. They affect the stability of Southern Asia and our interests there and those of our friends. They will also influence the ultimate security of our sea lanes in the Indian Ocean. Big Power operations by proxy are a major threat to peace, and the threat of big Power intervention also is still present. This is again something which we should wish to debate before Christmas.
Finally, superimposed most-importantly on all this, is a humanitarian problem of stupendous proportions. In the wreckage of East Pakistan the cries of the needy and destitute millions have been drowned by the thunder of the guns, but when the shooting stops and when the final bloody retribution has taken its tragic course, then the cry for help will be heard and doubtless this Parliament will be asked to vote more funds for rehabilitation and relief. I hope that before we rise for the Christmas Recess this plea for a debate too will be taken into consideration.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: For the last 21 years I have never spoken in a debate of this nature. If I do not speak in such a debate for another 21 years, I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me a few minutes to raise a most serious matter —that is, as my interests are in fishing, the subject of the European Economic Community and fishing limits.
It is quite scandalous that at present the Government have not thought fit to inform the House of when they will hold a debate upon this subject before we sign the Treaty of Accession. I speak in the interests not merely of Yorkshire fishermen and those of the deep sea port of Hull I represent, but of all fishermen in the United Kingdom. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Government's case, I mention one small item in the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Duchy. My home is at the mouth of the Coquet, at Amble, in Northumberland. Of all of this stretch of coast, from Cape Wrath to the mouth of the Humber, 20 or 30 miles from the mouth of the Coquet to the mouth of the Tweed, has been handed over for open access to continental fishermen between the 6 and 12 mile limit. I do not know why that is so. That is only one of many other facts of which we have been denied true knowledge, because of only the most scanty and desultory bouts of exchanges at Question Time between the two Front Benches and back benchers.
It is quite iniquitous. The Chancellor has spoken of safeguarding about 95 per cent. or 98 per cent. That is what he thinks. But we want to know how much, and many of us disagree with what he has so far said. The Chancellor of the Duchy stated on Monday what his proposals are. They do not stand up in the light of past statements or pledges—if I can call them pledges—made either by himself or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I found one statement most difficult to equate, and that is the matter of standing firm with Norway, meaning getting no less or no worse terms than the Norwegians. I know that Scandinavians, when negotiating, say, "I do not" or "I will not "—period. They can be very difficult. But nevertheless, the Norwegians have stuck hard at 12 miles. I thought


that there was an understanding whereby we should get no worse terms than the Norwegians. I may not use terms like "over a barrel", but at least we have not stood faithfully by them, in the sense that we have now foresaken the position that we had some weeks ago; whatever Denmark or Eire may have done alongside us in this matter.
We need a statement about why, how and when we have changed in this way, vis-à-vis our partners; in this case, Norway, one partner of a team of four that wished to enter the team of Six.
There are many legitimate and deep anxieties felt, as I said at Question Time on Monday, about conditions at the end of the ten-year transition period. Whatever may be thought by Yorkshire and Devonshire fishermen about 12 miles, six miles, in or out, there is no doubt, at least from listening to the statement on Monday, that nothing has been achieved in the sense of ensuring that at the end of the 10 years we shall have or use a veto, or be able in any way to safeguard our position. It may be said, after 10 years, if we are in a certain position, after two changes of the status quo, "Why change?"
On the other hand, it may be said by our partners that there will be a change. What we want before the treaty is signed is a solid, factual statement that that will be our position, if and when, after the ten-year period, we are called upon to defend it. It may be that a Labour Government will be in power when that happens. We know what we shall do, but we want to know what this Government intend to do if that situation arises.
What is meant when the Chancellor of the Duchy speaks of "a general review"? Do we intend to enlist the support of the Danes, the Irish and the Norwegians? Do the Government have something more definite in mind? It is no good the Government talking about democracy if, before they sign the Treaty, they have no intention of allowing the House to consider the matter, to check, to examine and if possible to chisel away some of the proposals. Unless the Government provide that opportunity before the recess, they will be condemned in the eyes of not only those on this side of the House but those on the benches opposite.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I rise to comment briefly on the question of Anglo-American relations. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is shortly to meet President Nixon. I do not think that anybody would dispute the importance of the meeting, or would not want to wish my right hon. Friend every success. It seems reasonable that this subject should be aired as a background to this important meeting.
The point I essentially wish to make is that we should pay rather more attention to the nature of Anglo-American relations than we have done in recent months. It is important to rebuild as close and as strong a working relationship as is possible with the United States. I believe that in the sensible enthusiasm to join the Common Market there have been signs that that important ingredient in our traditional policy has been somewhat neglected.
Let me instance three ways in which that has been so. First, the important arguments about the international financial situation have attracted a great deal of attention in recent months. I should not argue that in the arguments that have taken place all right is on the American side, but I believe that we have at times shown a lack of understanding of the true nature of the American problems. I instance specifically our approach to the question of American devaluation. We now know roughly what is going to happen, but there has been some failure on our part to understand the simple constitutional point of just how difficult it is for the Americans to devalue.
We assume that under their constitution the Americans are able to do as we can. In this country the Chancellor of the Exchequer can announce to the House that we have devalued, and that is final. That is not possible under American law. They do not have the same freedom of action, and the way in which that has been repeatedly overlooked by commentators exemplifies our failure to understand what is going on in the United States. In this whole international debate there needs to be a great deal of give and take on both sides. I believe that we have moved to a more reasonable situation than existed


a few weeks ago, but it is important to understand that the Americans, as well as Europe, have real problems.
Second, and somewhat akin to that, is the degree of protectionism entailed in the Common Market. The Americans, ever since President Kennedy was in office have been keen that Britain should join the Common Market. I think that they have been inspired by altruistic motives of the kind which have characterised their post-war policy as a whole. They believe that it would be for the good of world order, and I think that they have been right—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Not all of them.

Mr. Raison: The great majority of them.

Mr. Tuck: I do not know.

Mr. Raison: American official policy has taken that line, and I think that the reasons for it have been good and justified. On the other hand, I think they have been insufficiently aware that in the European policy, and especially the agricultural policy, there is a degree of protectionism which was going to rebound against them, but they have now woken up to that danger.
I believe that it is right that this country should join the Common Market, and I have voted in favour of doing so. On the other hand, I believe that as a long-term policy we should work to diminish the protectionism which exists in the common agricultural policy. I recognise that the C.A.P. is an important part of the Community, but we should try to diminish its effect. We should be prepared to work in sympathy with the Americans in their approach to it, and I hope that that matter will be considered by the Government.
The third area is defence. There is a degree of complacency afoot in the political world, and especially perhaps in Europe, about the overall defence situation. On visiting Brussels one hears a lot of talk about détente, about how the great threat from the Communist world is perhaps not what it was. I believe that that is nonsense. There may be a temporary lull, and I am not against any moves to reduce tension, but the fact remains that there are two camps. There is a camp made up of the free world,

and a camp made up of the Communist world, and any temptation or tendency on our part to overlook that would be disastrous.
It is essential for the defence of a free Western Europe that the Americans should remain involved, and any idea that we can build up a self-contained, self-sufficient European defence force—nuclear, non-nuclear or anything else—is a fallacy, and policies which are calculated to encourage the Americans to withdraw their troops from Europe can only be disastrous. I again strongly urge on the House the importance of making it clear that that is our view, because the nature of the Anglo-American alliance, and of the European American alliance, is of tremendous importance.
I raise those matters against the background of the Prime Minister's forthcoming discussions with President Nixon, and I hope the House will feel that there is something of importance in them.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I think that it would be wrong for the House to go away for the recess and not return until the middle of January. Before the House returns we shall have had the next unemployment count, and if tomorrow's figure does not do so, that figure will certainly top the 1 million mark.
What action will be taken before the House rises to assure my constituents that their employment prospects will be safeguarded? Hanging over Manchester in general, and over my constituency in particular, there is a shadow of unemployment which has not been known for a third of a century. Travelling around the wards of the Ardwick constituency, I hear from priests and from pub landlords the difficulties about unemployment. This topic is in the minds of more of my constituents than any others, and when one realises that my constituency is one of the worse housing black spots in the country, that is saying a great deal. On visiting people in clubs, or at their homes, and asking how they are, all too often the reply is, "I have been declared redundant since you last saw me".
The December unemployment figures show an increasingly tragic picture for the greater Manchester area. The figures to be announced for this week show that


between November and December the number of unemployed in Manchester has risen by 517 to the appalling total of 27,326. The number of wholly unemployed has risen even more, from 26,216 to 26,901, an increase of 685. The number of male unemployed, the breadwinners of the families, has risen from 22,945 to 23,733, an increase of 788 in one month.
The situation in the City of Manchester is appalling. In the period since I was elected—in the period since this Government came to power—unemployment has risen by 82 per cent. and the percentage of the working population unemployed has risen from 2·1 per cent. in June, 1970, to 4 per cent. this month. This situation is intolerable. It is part also of a wider North-Western situation which is increasingly intolerable. Measures must be taken by the Government to alleviate this situation before the House rises—measures which I suggest should be announced to the House.
The number of unemployed in the North-West region has risen since this Government came into power, up to November—we do not have the December figures for the region—from 73,494 to 136,440. The number of redundancies there between the Government coming to power and this October is 70,400—more than any other region in Great Britain, including even Scotland.
There are two announcements which the Government should make before the House rises which may alleviate the situation in the Greater Manchester conurbation. First, they should now announce the withdrawal of the rule contained in the guidelines for industrial development certificate control in the issue of the Trade and Industry Journal dated 8th July this year, which laid down that I.D.C.s would not generally be granted for new projects, entirely new lines of production or substantial expansion which could be taken elsewhere than in the City of Manchester.
The second matter is one which I have taken up repeatedly with Ministers at the Department of the Environment, who have proved arrogant and recalcitrant in this matter. I have written to the Minister for Housing and Construction about it and have not had a reply yet. Perhaps he is too busy devising Questions for his

hon. Friends to ask him. The House should not rise until I have had a reply and a commitment from him that the provisions of the Housing Act, 1971, about housing improvement grants will be extended to the Greater Manchester area.
That Act extends the development areas and intermediate areas. On the latest unemployment figures, Manchester qualifies at least for intermediate Status, but the situation there, with regard to housing and the vast derelict blocks of flats—Brook House, Greenwood House and Heywood House—which the Tory council in Manchester allow to fall into decay, requires action under the Housing Act.
If the increased grants were given to my constituency which are available to development areas and intermediate areas, Manchester Corporation could deal with these terrible living barracks which thousands of my constituents have to live in. It would also be a major contribution to helping with unemployment in my constituency and in Manchester as a whole. The latest available figures, broken down by industries show that more construction workers are unemployed in Greater Manchester than workers in any other field.
Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will give us a specific commitment, that, before the House rises, I shall get a reply to my letter to the Minister, which he has had for nearly two weeks, about improvement grants, and that he will announce that the Government will consider improvement grants and I.D.C. control in greater Manchester.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not want to follow the points made by some of my hon. Friends about unemployment, fisheries and housing, although they are all very important. I would generally agree with most of the views expressed, except the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) about the injection of public money into housing. He qualified this by saying that he was only referring to the 1969 Housing Act, in which a 50 per cent. increase was made in Government assistance for intermediate and development areas. I should remind my


right hon. Friend that, according to our debate on public expenditure last week, there has been a drop in the money spent on housing compared with the expenditure of other Departments, so this aspect is only a very small part of the matter.
We have not had a coal industry debate since the Coal Industry Bill about nine or 10 months ago. Before that Bill, last year, we had a specific debate on coal mining. It is important to have a coal debate before we rise, for four very good reasons. First, there is the impending pay claim of the miners. Second, there are the negotiations proceeding with the Coal Board and all that flows from that. Third, there is the more important—to some people—question of imported coal and its cost to the country. Fourth, there is the question of redundancy pay for the over-55s who have been thrown on the scrap heap by successive Governments—a matter which I raised at Question Time.
The miners' pay claim is being dealt with by the union executive after meetings on Monday with the National Coal Board, when, if we are to believe any of the kite-flying in the Press, there might have been a slightly improved offer by the Board on the 7 per cent. initially offered after the Government had stuck their dirty little noses into the negotiations.
That offer of 7 per cent., taking into account the 11·86 per cent. increase in the cost of living since the last pay award, represents a real cut of 5 per cent. in their average living standards. So one does not wonder why the miners are so disturbed and why, as a result of their ballot three weeks ago, they decided, by a fairly overwhelming majority of 58·8 per cent. to 41·2 per cent., to take strike action if and when necessary on 9th January—before the House resumes.
Therefore, we could, and almost certainly will, have a major strike on our hands while the House is in recess. At no time since the Coal Industry Bill debate 10 months ago has the House debated this question, so we should debate the pay claim and the fact that we are in a Government-sponsored strike situation. According to those to whom I have spoken on the national executive of the N.U.M., the Coal Board was pressurised into offering only a 7·1 per cent. increase in wages.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: It is worth pointing out that if this 7 per cent. rise is accepted by the miners, the highest paid miners will still basically be on only £31·70.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. It leads me to another point which I should have made earlier. It is true that that is the maximum wage. We are not talking about production bonuses over and above that £31; we are talking about the maximum. Unlike Ministers and Members of Parliament, miners are not paid increases which are calculated in thousands of pounds; their increases are calculated in the main in shillings. Unlike the Royal Family, about whom we had a debate yesterday, redundant miners' increments are different from those which will be obtained by the Duke of Gloucester with his £40,000 when the Civil List is presumably passed next week.
Imported coal is closely allied to the present strike-bound situation. The Government have been meddling in the industry to reach this situation, not merely by telling the Coal Board to offer not more than 7 per cent., but by lifting the ban on imported coal, as they did on 3rd December last year. The result of lifting that ban was to increase stocks, not merely to provide more coal for the customer—we have already reached the alarming situation of having more coal stocks now than in the last five or six years and we are rapidly reaching the situation which existed in the late 1950s when the pit closure programme started—but to frustrate the bargaining position of the miners we are importing coal at double the cost to the consumer. The average price of imported coal between January and October was £10·10 per ton compared with the pithead price of British mined coal is £5·84 per ton.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going into a little too much detail. His argument has to relate in general terms to why we should sit longer.

Mr. Skinner: This is not the first time that I have strayed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall undoubtedly do it again. I shall be doing it in the morning on the Housing Finance Bill, but I shall be more


deliberate about it. However, I shall attempt to stick to your guidelines.
The point has been established that coal has been deliberately imported to frustrate the bargaining position of the miners in current wage negotiations. That is a matter, therefore, which should be debated before the House rises.
Finally, there have been consultations between the N.U.M. and the Department of Trade and Industry about payments to the over-55 redundant miners. Of the 17 proposals put forward by officials of the N.U.M., only about three, the least important, appear to have been accepted by the Minister for Industry if what he told me in answer to a Question the other day is correct. The whole question whether these miners over 55, who obviously will not get other jobs because of the unemployment situation, should be paid redundancy pay until they reach 65 years of age should be argued before the House rises.
Those are the three points which, in my view, would become part of a much wider debate if the House were to debate the coal industry and the present strikebound situation. The Government have not only anticipated it, but all their actions were premeditated towards that end. They are determined to have a clash with the miners because they can hide behind a 33 million-ton mountain of coal.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It seems extraordinary, looking at the Government's record, that we should want to extend their time even longer, but there have been one or two signs of grace. There are glimmerings of understanding on how to deal with the problems into which they have plunged the country. I refer, for example, to public expenditure. I should be loath that the House should go into recess when the beginnings of understanding are percolating across the Government benches.
I want to comment on four important aspects, which I will link to why we should continue sitting and not adjourn next week. First, many people will be facing a long, hard, black winter. In Scotland there are 141,000 people unemployed. It is the most difficult situation

since the war. We do not know how much more we shall be told about tomorrow, but we know that the situation will be worse before the winter is over.
Apart from the human problems which have been described, this House does not always recognise the real cost to this country. We have talked about public accounts and public expenditure over the last two weeks. However, we do not always recognise the economic cost which human suffering also has upon the country.
We spent the early part of this year pushing through legislation designed to deal with strikes and disputes. We had six months of solid slog.

Mr. Heffer: It was longer than that.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend says that it was longer than six months. The legislation earlier this year was designed to deal with a situation in which 10 million to 11 million working days a year were lost to industry. Because of this loss, we were told that we had to have that legislation. But those 10 million to 11 million working days are a fraction compared with the number of days we lose through unemployment. With the present level of unemployment we are losing 250 million working days every year—exactly 25 times the number lost through strikes and disputes. But we apparently cannot keep Parliament sitting another week to deal with that problem. Let us have no more nonsense about the malaise facing us in industry due to strikes and disputes. We are concerned with a serious unemployment situation.
I should like to refer specifically to two matters as extra reasons to continue sitting. There are two focal points in Scotland on which decisions should be made. The Government have not yet acted. I refer to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and Plessey. In both cases the workers decided that they would no longer tolerate a situation where others would decide their future for them. They took their future into their own hands and acted. They are justified. They have preserved the plant at Plessey by their direct action. They have also preserved jobs in Scotland and at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders by their action.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), with whom


I rarely agree, was right when he said that the Government should now take action about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. A week ago, because of the Government's panic about unemployment, we saw an injection of about £150 million of fresh public expenditure. If only a proportion of that money were sent to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders to keep the four yards open, it would do a great deal to restore confidence in Scotland. The cost of financing a private company to take over only half the yards is already running at about £10 million to £12 million in addition to the private investment involved. So there is no reason why the public investment to keep the four yards going should not be made.
Similarly, the workers at Plessey are saying that the plant and machinery will not leave the yard. The workers have pushed industry, particularly the Plessey company, into a situation where they are willing to discuss matters. The workers' action has brought together two companies—Lyons, the development company, and Plessey, the parent company—to see what solution can be found in the way of new private tenants for the factory,
The only people who have not acted are the Government, and they owned the factory in the first place. It would be intolerable for us to adjourn next week before we make the Government face up to their responsibilities to assist the workers at Plessey to find a solution.
There has been a great deal of discussion in the last few weeks on the question of fisheries. Some of those who have taken part in the discussion did not know much about the issue before. I want to deal not only with the effects of the Government's recent negotiations upon Britain. I want to deal also with the effects of the Government's action in making what is virtually a sellout on the fisheries question.
The Government's action is shameful, not only because they have ignored the interests of British fishermen, but because of the effects upon our ancient ally, Norway. This sell-out has helped to put the Norwegians over a barrel. Norway, a small country with a population of only a few million, would not he joining the Common Market or proceeding with the negotations were it not for the fact that Britain is moving towards the Common Market.
Norway depends upon fish. Fishing is the mainstay of Norway's economy. Fishing is central, not peripheral, to the economy of Norway. Yet Norway's major ally, which is about to enter the Common Market with Norway, has sold Norway short on the one question that is vital to Norway. We have placed Norway in the position where it must choose whether to defend its fishing interests by trying to go it alone and secure a better deal, or not to join the Common Market, whilst Britain, Norway's major ally, intends to join the Common Market, in which case all our interests will be directed towards the Common Market. It is shameful and intolerable that Britain should have placed this choice before the people of Norway.
In a very moderate speech on this matter, a Norwegian Minister said, "After all, Britain is a big country. In 10 years' time it may be able to guarantee better continuing things. We are a small country. We have no power to do that". Britain had the power to do it; it could have held out, but it did not. We have sold Norway, an important ally, down the river. I, for one, am thoroughly ashamed of this action, quite apart from its effect upon Britain.
My final point is a small one, but it causes me a great deal of personal disappointment. It is the Government's conduct on the question of school milk. The House is asked to agree to this Motion in a situation in which at least one local council—Merthyr Tydvil—is trying its best to safeguard the health of its children, and when the whole juggernaut of the governmental apparatus is to be brought in to crush this small local council.
Parliament should be sitting so that it can condemn the Government's conduct if and when that happens. The action of the councillors of Merthyr Tydvil, which is backed by the Labour movement and by the people of Merthyr Tydvil, is a sufficient reason for us to stay here so that we can tell the Government what we think of their conduct.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I make no apology for suggesting that the House should continue to sit instead of rising for the Christmas Recess next week. Many points of view have already been aired on the question of unemployment,


but, without being repetitious, it is essential for me to refer to the last debate we had on unemployment, when the Leader of the House replied for the Government.

Mr. Whitelaw: It was not the last debate.

Mr. Hamilton: I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman for the reply that he gave to that debate; because I liken the performance of the House on that occasion to a pantomime, and the House did not give the unemployment situation the attention which it should have done. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming to see me and discussing the matter with me afterwards.
Since then, representations have been made about the unemployment situation in Scotland by the Scottish Development Council, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Lanarkshire Development Council and, on inumerable occasions, by Scottish Labour Members to the various Ministers, but we have not been able to extract from Ministers any details about what they intend to do to solve the unemployment problem throughout Britain.
I shall deal specifically with the situation in Scotland, particularly the situation in Lanarkshire. Scotland now has 141,454 unemployed. We could be told tomorrow that the figure is 145,000. In my constituency one factory will make 350 workers redundant at the beginning of next year. Another factory will close next February and a further 130 jobs will be lost. We cannot in any circumstances carry this extra burden, because 8·9 per cent. of the insurable population of Lanarkshire is signing on at the Labour Exchanges.
The steel industry is rapidly contracting. I understand that early in the New Year a statement will be made by the British Steel Corporation about further redundancies in the Lanarkshire area. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to extract from the appropriate Minister an assurance that before the House rises for the recess we shall be informed what the corporation's investment policy is to be, because this is of vital importance to Lanarkshire in particular and to Scotland as a whole. I am not talking about Hunterston, because I appreciate that the

Government cannot give an immediate answer on that.
Next, we were assured that a statement would be made shortly on the question of a heating allowance for old-age pensioners. This is a favourite hobby horse for many of us. I press this matter now, not because it is popular, but because I am one of those Members who live in their constituencies. I am very close to my constituents and I see the trying circumstances and the misery in which they live. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to tell us what the Government's intentions are in this matter. Are the Government prepared to give the old-age pensioners a Christmas bonus? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have a full-scale debate on this question after the recess, and an assurance from the Government that they will give a substantial sum to the old-age pensioners. I hope particularly that they will tell us that we shall have an annual review of pensions. These are very important questions.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I oppose both the Adjournment of the House and on the assumption that there is an Adjournment, its proposed length. The Government have given time for a nice debate on unemployment and a nice debate on pensions. Now they think that they have done their duty, and that hon. Members can go on their ski-ing or cruising holidays and treat with studious unconcern the plight of the unemployed and the pensioners. I admit that the unemployment cannot be solved at a stroke, but some plans should be before the House before it rises.
We have proposed extra money for Her Majesty the Queen, members of the Government and Members of Parliament. Before doing that, we should have seen that the old-age pensioners had what was due to them. For many of them it will be a cheerless and cold Christmas because they cannot afford the food or heat they need. Before we adjourn something should be done about that. At a stroke, they could have been given more than the extra pound. That pound is not worth more than 60p, because their supplementary pension is taken back, and the 60p is swallowed up in the increased cost of


living. We could give the pensioners an increase before giving the Queen and Members of Parliament their increases, but we are treating them with studious unconcern. How callously indifferent can we get? Does it need a war to arouse our better instincts?
I believe that there are about 120,000 people in this country dependent on fisheries. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is throwing them gaily into the ravening jaws of the E.E.C. countries. We could stand firm, as Norway has, but we are not doing so. I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members feel, as I do, that we should stand firm on fisheries before contemplating joining the E.E.C., and we should have time for a debate before the recess.
We are to have nearly four weeks' recess now, and normally we have only a week at Easter and about two weeks at Whit-sun. I told the Leader of the House last year that it would be far better to take something off our Christmas holiday, because we are not very tired at this time of the year. We are not far from our last summer holiday, we have not had the gruelling experience that we shall probably have in February and March of tramping through the House at all hours of the night on the E.E.C. legislation. An extra week at Easter or Whitsun would be far more acceptable than it is now, as we should then be much more tired, and particularly as now, unless we go on ski-ing holidays, we cannot use the time to be out of doors because the evenings draw in early.
The Leader of the House said last year that he would consider my suggestion. He took a week off Christmas, but he did not put it on Easter, and at Whitsun not only did we not have an extra week, but he stole the other week. So he has stolen two weeks from our holiday during the year. I ask him to shorten the Christmas Recess and lengthen the Easter and Whit-sun Recesses.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) calls a Division, I will if necessary go into the Lobby in opposition to the Motion.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Fred Peart: We have had a fascinating debate in which 17 Members have spoken. We have heard a variety of speeches, covering a great range

of subjects, but most hon. Members have concentrated on what is perhaps the most serious of all the problems we have to face—unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was right to stress the positive aspects, that we need certain assurances before we adjourned. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us that he will inform Ministers about the debate and that they will explain next week how they will counter rising unemployment. It was also right of my hon. Friends to stress the question of heating allowances, a matter raised by the T.U.C. when it met the Prime Minister.
I should also like assurances on many other matters, some of which we have debated. The other week we had a major debate on the development areas, which I had the honour and privilege to open. But we still need assurances. Will there be a statement before the recess on heating allowances for the aged? Will it be part of the general approach to reflating the economy to meet the need to get production going? Are we to have a change in policy towards the development areas? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) asked for a statement on I.D.C. policy. Have the Government made up their mind on regional employment premiums, which are very important for the development areas? Is there to be a return to investment grants?
The Government's policy has failed. They must accept responsibility for the very high unemployment figures. We hear talk about reaching 1 million unemployed, and more, but we must remember that there are more than 1 million unemployed now, because it has been estimated that nearly 400,000 people are not registered for various reasons. So we face a very serious problem.
Hon. Members were right to seek assurances about the various public boards and the investment policies to be pursued. Several hon. Members spoke about the problem of Clydebank, the need for a Minister to go there, and the need for a major announcement before the recess.
I will not labour the point. It would be wrong for me to go into the merits of the argument about unemployment. The simple fact is that we want to know from the Leader of the House whether


the Government will make major announcements of policy to deal seriously with the unemployment problem which face many areas, not just the old development areas. We have heard about the North-West, and particularly the Manchester area, and my Scottish colleagues have rightly pointed to the tragedies of the past. But unemployment has now been created in areas where it was not such a problem as we had in the old distressed areas. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford West (Mr. Orme) and others raised this matter.
Hon. Members have also raised the question of the fishery negotiations with the E.E.C. I am glad that they did so. There is a danger that certain sections of our fishing industry will be seriously affected. No continuing agreement has been reached at Brussels. I believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will sell sections of the industry down the river. He and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food always gave the impression that they would not sign the Treaty of Accession unless they had solved the fisheries problem. But it has not been solved. The Community has had its way. Norway, one of our traditional allies, has been sold down the river. We have let down a small country which depends upon fishing to a much greater extent than we do.
Among those most affected are our inshore fishermen. These are men who not only catch fish for the country but who man the voluntary services like the lifeboats, and in wartime join the Royal Navy. Their skill in wartime has been invaluable. It is wrong that we should not have a major debate on the fisheries issue. I know that discussions are going on about it and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will, if not tonight, then before the recess, announce a debate before we sign the Treaty. It would be very wrong not to have a major debate on this matter. I shall not go into the merits of the case, but tonight is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to indicate whether we shall have that debate.
Many other matters have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) emphasised the importance of the Home Secretary making a state-

ment about Northern Ireland before the recess. Many hon. Members on both sides have stressed the importance of Northern Ireland and the need to have certain matters clarified before the recess.
There has been interesting argument about the visit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Washington and on the whole question of this country's return to fixed exchange rates. I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry that this is a very important matter. What emerges from the Washington talks will affect this country. The hon. Gentleman went on to examine the common agricultural policy and regional policy, which affect world trade. This viewpoint was also taken up in an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I could not fault his speech, and I hope he is not embarrassed by my saying that.
We need Anglo-American co-operation and we tend to under-estimate the American position. The United States has had to suffer from restrictive policies pursued by the E.E.C. I do not want now to debate the merits or demerits of our joining the Community, but it is a simple fact, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who is a supporter of entry, agreed, that the Community has been pursuing restrictionist policies. The common agricultural policy is a policy of restrictionism from behind a tariff wall. This is why the Americans are so sensitive on the matter.
I recall hearing Senator Humphrey not long ago at a very responsible gathering in London outlining some of the American difficulties. There is a danger that we shall drift into more restrictionism. All the promises of the G.A.T.T., the Kennedy Round and other policies which sought to liberalise trade have gone, and we now see what difficulties the United States is facing. I think that the Americans have reason to criticise actions which have been taken by people in Europe who owe their liberty to the American presence there. I hope that we shall have a statement on these matters as well.
We also had an interesting speech by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who rightly raised the question of the report by Lord Rothschild dealing with the framework of


Government research and development. This is a very important matter and there is to be a debate in another place in January. Are we to have a debate about it? I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a special responsibility and interest in the matter. It is of vital importance and I should like to know what the Government's attitude is.

Mr. Dalyell: No doubt my right hon. Friend heard the intervention in my speech by the Leader of the House which, I am sure, was made in good faith. Some of us have become extremely curious as to exactly what is happening about the briefing of the Press by very senior people in the Government machine. Therefore, I asked the Government to make some kind of inquiry, which the right hon. Gentleman will not have had an opportunity to do yet, into precisely what some very senior people in Downing Street are up to.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has made another speech. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted what he has said and perhaps will reply to it. I think my hon. Friend has made his point.
I also welcomed my hon. Friend's suggestion that we should discuss nuclear power policies, the Vintner Committee and our whole emphasis in nuclear engineering, including the question of whether we should give up the advanced gas-cooled reactor. I still take an interest in the matter myself, and I believe that it is important that we should have a statement. My hon. Friend also talked effectively about trade with China. I did not know that he had been in China. I hope that his visit was during the last recess. He stressed the fact that we want trade with China, and we all agree with that.
Other hon. Members referred to the war between India and Pakistan. It is not for me to enter into the arguments about the war. My only wish at the moment is that we should get peace. It is a tragedy that two countries which have relied so much on aid in the past should now be using up their resources trying to blow each other out of existence. A Commonwealth initiative has been suggested, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will keep us informed and that we shall probably have a major statement before the recess.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) referred to the Pearce Commission, its work in Rhodesia and the test of acceptability. I hope that a statement indicating the Government's attitude to the broadening of the Commission will be made before the recess. It is an important matter and I support what was said by the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick raised the question of improvement grants, and perhaps the Lord President will convey to the Minister for Housing and Construction that we should like some information on this before the recess.
A matter which is separate from the question of unemployment, but related to it, is that of the need for a debate on the coal industry, suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There is a danger that there will be a major dispute and a strike in the industry before the House meets again. I do not disagree with anything my hon. Friend has said. There is only one pit in my constituency, but I am well aware of the importance of the coal industry and of the concern among miners over coal imports.
All Governments have had a measure of responsibility for running down the industry so that we are now in a position when we have to import coal. My hon. Friend was stressing the importance of taking action although he deplored Government intervention in the pay dispute. We hope that we can avoid a dispute and that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a satisfactory reply to all the points that have been raised.

6.22 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has rightly pointed out that the majority of speeches have understandably been concerned with the serious unemployment situation. He mentioned all those hon. Members who have spoken and I will not repeat their names but will try to deal with the points that have been raised.
It would be wrong in this debate to give a catalogue of the measures already taken and it would be equally wrong to discuss what this House discusses, sometimes more in private than in public—the baffling change in the nature and character of unemployment, the problems concerned with changes in the labour force and the way in which firms use labour. These are problems about which we are deeply worried. A considerable number of measures have been taken and the Government believe that they will have effect. In a continuing situation of this sort I cannot promise particular statements, I can only say that any measures which are thought to be right by the Government will be announced and taken.
The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) raised the topic of a nuclear power station and spoke of various kinds of nationalised industry expenditure which should be brought forward. As he knows, both in the defence programme and the nationalised industry programme, various measures have been put forward. I agree with what he said about the importance of decisions concerning nuclear power stations. This is a matter for review and I will see that his remarks are brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) raised the question of the Irlam steelworks. I appreciate all that he said and will see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I appreciated the reasonable way in which he raised this matter, which is of great importance to the Manchester area. While dealing with Manchester, I will also investigate the possibility of a reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) who dealt with the question of housing grants. I will see that his remarks about I.D.C.s are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) raised the question of the proposals of the British Steel Corporation. I did not know the possibilities he mentioned but I will see that this matter is investigated.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) dealt with the question of Plessey, and I know that my right hon.

Friend will look into this. I will deal later with the important question of the Upper Clyde Shipyard.
Perhaps I may now turn to another matter raised by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), Bothwell and the right hon. Member for Workington, namely the question of a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services dealing with heating allowances. I cannot make any commitment about such a statement but I am bound to point out one fact. I do not do it in a controversial sense; I state it as a fact. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend recently, pensioners today, as a result of the increase which I would remind the hon. Member for Watford was given in September—before the various other increases he has discussed were brought forward—will be able to buy more this Christmas in terms of real purchasing power than ever before, certainly more than at Christmases when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. If that be true it is right to put the discussion in that context.
The right hon. Member for Workington, the hon. Member for Walton, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and others raised the question of the fishing agreement with the E.E.C. As they will appreciate, there is to be a debate on this on the Consolidated Fund in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will take part. That will provide an opportunity for hon. Gentlemen to put particular points.

Mr. Peart: I do not believe that a debate on the Consolidated Fund is a satisfactory solution. I know that there are the usual channels and I understand that approaches are to be made—I do not know whether the Leader of the House has had any approaches. A day or a half a day at a suitable time is needed. Probing on the Consolidated Fund is no answer to a request for a major debate.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman said but various hon. Gentlemen were putting certain points for clarification relating to the fishing agreement and I was pointing out that


the opportunity to obtain this clarification will arise on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. John Mendelson: I have been listening carefully to this debate. The right hon. Gentleman is replying as Leader of the House of Commons and it is surely incumbent upon him to tell the House whether there is to be a major debate soon on the fishing agreement—about which hon Members did not know when they voted on 28th October—before the Treaty of Accession is signed. If there is not to be a debate will the Government postpone the date of signing until the House has returned and had the opportunity for a debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can certainly give no such assurance. All I am saying is that an opportunity will arise on the Consolidated Fund tonight.

Mr. James Johnson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that this is a unique issue and that we are faced with a fait accompli? This has come so late that it has never been debated on the Floor of the House, whereas all the other issues have been debated. Does he not feel that the House should be allowed to debate this and that it should not be tucked away in a general discussion on Consolidated Fund?

Mr. Whitelaw: If I went into the arguments on the subject I should be preempting what is to be said in the debate. The debate will certainly provide an opportunity for raising such matters.
May I turn to the issue of the war between India and Pakistan raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and the right hon. Member for Workington. I can give the assurance that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on this situation whenever it seems helpful to the House. I cannot say definitely that there will be one before the Recess but I can say that if the occasion arises and there is something of importance which should be put before the House, a statement will be made. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge and Brad-for, West for the way in which they put their points. The Government have been encouraged by the support they have received from the House in respect of

their attitude in this very difficult and tragic situation. Relief and reconstruction plans are in hand, and these matters will be most carefully considered.
I turn to the question of Northern Ireland, raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and, from his particular knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is returning from Northern Ireland today and, naturally, I am not in a position to make any promises about what he may wish to tell the House. I cannot even say that he will necessarily make a statement. But, as with India and Pakistan, this is a continuing situation and I know that my right hon. Friend will wish to keep the House informed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, asked particularly about any representations which may have been made to the Government of Eire. The most recent representations were made yesterday afternoon to Mr. Lynch by our Ambassador in Eire.

Mr. Orme: I put forward an opposing point of view on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman says that representations have been made to the Prime Minister of the Republic. May we know the terms of those representations? It is important that we should be told their terms.

Mr. Whitelaw: I must apologise to the hon. Member for not saying that he, too, raised this subject. He put forward a perfectly fair point of view. I cannot tell him the exact terms of the representations, but they were on the subject of action being taken. Mr. Lynch has declared himself to be against violence, and that is very important. The representations were made on the basis of what has been happening in some of the serious incidents to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North referred.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of the Rothschild and the Dainton Report. I appreciate the importance of this subject. It is being debated in another place. I cannot give a commitment to a debate, but I realise that this House should debate it and I will see whether, and when, I can fit it in for a debate.

Mr. Dalyell: When I was speaking on this subject, the Lord President interrupted me to imply that, when I referred to a debate between Sir Burke Trend and Lord Rothschild, reported in The Times today, it was a fabrication of the true position. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who did not have prior knowledge of this particular point, to reconsider the matter? It is a matter, not of tittle-tattle, but of central argument in the Government machine on a very important policy issue.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has broadened the issue. He referred to an article in The Times, and I confined myself, as I think it was perfectly proper to do, to the reply that from my own personal knowledge—and I am in a particular position to know—the suggestions in that article about the relationship between Lord Rothschild and Sir Burke Trend were not correct. They are not correct, and I can give that absolute assurance. The hon. Gentleman interrupted the right hon. Member for Workington, and said that this had emanated from a high source. I know nothing of these matters. All I have said is that what the article said about the relationship was not true.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman's other points, I realise the great importance of the nuclear programme, which is under review at the moment. As soon as any decisions are made they will be announced to the House. I know of the hon. Gentleman's particular knowledge of China and Formosa as a result of the visit which he made to that area. I note what he said. This will be among the subjects to be discussed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their talks with the President of the United States in the next few days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry raised the question of fixed exchange rates and the international monetary situation. He has apologised to me for not being present. I will ensure that what he said is conveyed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will have the opportunity of discussing these matters with members of the American Administration in the next few days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Renfrew,

West referred to the question of the Upper Clyde shipyards and asked for assurances. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart that the tragic death of Mr. Hugh Stenhouse struck a very serious blow at the progress being made towards a solution of this problem. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is very anxious to be able to announce the name of the new chairman as soon as possible. I cannot say when that will be, but I know that if my right hon. Friend can make a statement before the Recess he will do so. I know the importance which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart attaches to a visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Upper Clyde yards. I shall be very pleased to pass that proposal to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) raised the question of the Pearce Commission on Rhodesia. I can assure him that the further names of the members of the Commission will be announced very soon, certainly before the Recess.

Mr. David Steel: To the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, to the House. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the membership of the Commission and its methods of working, and I shall ensure that they are passed to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) raised various questions about relations between this country and the United States. This matter was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Workington. These are properly matters to be raised before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has his meeting with the President of the United States in the next few days.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised the question of a debate on the coal industry. He made various assertions, which I do not accept, about the coal negotiations. As to the subject of a coal debate, I can fairly point out to the hon. Gentleman—and this is a tactic which my predecessors have used; it is quite fair to use it, and I propose to do so now—that this would have been a perfectly suitable subject for debate on a Supply Day. This is frequently a


subject that is raised on Supply Days. I have not made a point of that kind for a very long time, but it is a reasonable point to make on this occasion.
The Recess which I am proposing—and whether this is a merit in the proposal I do not know—is certainly shorter than the normal Christmas Recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said that we shall need a rest before we embark on other matters. I know my hon. Friend's staying power. He has some experience of my staying power, which is not inconsiderable. I think that it is reasonable to have a slightly shorter Recess than usual. I commend the Motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday 22nd December do adjourn till Monday 17th January.

RENTCHARGE ABOLITION BILL

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the creation of rentcharges on freehold land, and to extinguish existing rentcharges equitably.
Last year the House was kind enough to give me leave to bring in a Bill on this matter and so I do not intend to deploy the case once more except to say that since I spoke on this matter a year ago the practice is still spreading to new estates in the areas affected, and also we have had some recognition from the Government that a problem does in fact here exist, because the Under-Secretary of State, whom I see in his place, was kind enough to grant me an interview when he heard representations I made on four points about the system which I think very undesirable and particularly the many instances where the phrase ground rent is used instead of rentcharge.
There is, first, very general confusion in the mind of the general public, and some people honestly believe that they do not own the land on which their house stands, and so feel they do not have the complete ownership which they in fact possess.
Secondly, there is a great deal of lack of knowledge about their rights of re-

demption under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and their rights are not told to them by the people who collect the rent-charges or even, in many cases, by the solicitors who deal with these matters when they are being handed over for sale.
Thirdly, there is a very undesirable anonimity about the collectors of the rent-charges, who do their very best to hide the identity of the person who actually receives the rentcharge.
Then there is exploitation.
The Minister for Local Government and Development, in a letter to me on 7th January, said that under compulsory redemption at present the consideration is about 10½ times the annual rent. I have cases, of which I have told the Minister, of 20, 25 and 30 times being asked for, and an hon. Friend of mine today has told me about 40 years of purchase being asked.
Another point which I did not raise at the time with the Minister but which has since come to my notice, is that whereas the Minister said that the legal charge asked to redeem a rentcharge was usually between £5 and £10 the Bristol Law Society, with which I have been in correspondence, has told me that the sum is fixed at £15. This creates gross anomolies, because there was an offer to somebody to purchase a rentcharge at £2·50p, but the price was £25, and legal costs of £15 were being asked. I would submit that in a transaction on a sum of £25 legal costs of £15 are really out of all proportion.
Therefore, I would ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill. The Minister, I am happy to say, was kind enough to say that his Department would look at ways in which local councils could be informed of people's rights in this matter and ways in which the general public could be made more aware of their rights to prevent this exploitation. In the meantime my hon. Friend for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and I are writing to many local authorities concerned in this matter asking them to follow the example of Bristol Corporation so that when they dispose of land in their possession a direct transaction is made between the corporation and the house purchaser so that no profit is made on the land by a developer and he cannot


impose rentcharges, and also asking them, when considering planning permission with developers, to try to negotiate voluntary agreements so that developers will not impose the rentcharge system.
I recognise that these matters are only palliatives and that the real answer is in legislation. So I ask the House for leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. R. C. Mitchell. Mr. Ernest G. Perry, and Mr. John Fraser.

RENTCHARGE ABOLITION

Bill to prohibit the creation of rent-charges on freehold land, and to extinguish existing rentcharges equitably: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday, 16th June and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION (FOURTH CHANNEL)

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It is a great pleasure to me tonight to be able to raise in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill the question of the allocation of the fourth and final U.H.F. frequency for television broadcasting in this country. It is a matter of great concern and one which, I submit to the House and to hon. Members who are waiting to speak later on other subjects in this debate, is of very pressing and great domestic importance, because there is a possibility—I put it no higher—that the public may be in the process of handing it over without legislation, without recourse to this House, and without proper public debate, and my purpose in introducing this debate tonight is to suggest that that would be no less than a national scandal.
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has been quoted in The Times as saying on 1st December that there would be a ruling this month on the use of a fourth tlevision channel. That may or may not be an accurate report. We shall wait with interest to see what the Minister has decided, if he has decided anything, on this matter. I would submit to him that it is a very urgent and important consideration, first because what we are dealing with here is the allocation of a broadcasting channel in a situation in which broadcasting itself is in a state of flux, and secondly, because the fourth U.H.F. channel is the last of its type, the last mass audience television channel which can be allocated in the next 10 years. Broadcasting is in a state of flux. The Minister can hardly dispute that, despite his having killed off, rather wilfully, in July last year the Annan Committee set up by the previous Government to investigate the future structure of broadcasting.
I would like at this point to pay a brief tribute to those organisations and foundations which have, notwithstanding that foolish action, gone ahead with their own commissions of inquiry, notably the main union in the industry, the A.C.T.T. and also the Rowntree Trust.
I do not believe that in this situation, when the Minister is attempting, with somewhat lukewarm support from his party, to push through the House a Bill to introduce a system of local commercial radio—or so-called local commercial radio—we can or should now be disposing of a television frequency when it is the last television frequency of its type. Till the 405 line transmission has been discontinued in this country, not till, perhaps, 10 to 12 years' time, U.H.F. bands IV and V carry three national colour services and could carry a fourth, and 625 lines will be the only frequency for transmitting national colour television in this country. We could, therefore, have the fourth channel, the last channel of U.H.F. frequency. In 15 years' time the situation may be very different. In 15 years' time the debate may not be at all about mass audience television but about cable television, co-axial cables, various systems of delivery, C.A.T.V. systems, and stationary satellites and possibly the domestic use of direct transmission to people's homes. But that cannot be for the next 10 years, and we are now talking about the possible use of the fourth television frequency.
That is the background, then, to the current campaign which has been launched by the Independent Television Authority and by its allies inside the current I.T.V. Confederation of 15 companies or, more precisely, the big five companies which effectively control the networking in what they, I suppose, would call the I.T.V. I, the main channel for transmission, for that other second channel which they would call the I.T.V. 2.
The B.B.C. has had two channels since the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee, which were enacted by the late Conservative Government more than eight years ago, and that has led to complementary programming by the B.B.C. It has not been an unmixed blessing either for the viewer or the B.B.C. itself. Nevertheless, it has had a major effect on British television and had

a significant effect upon the I.T.A. both in terms of the I.T.V. and in terms of the audience which the I.T.A. channel is able to command. I shall look at that as well in more detail later.
The I.T.A. in its submission to the Pilkington Committee some years ago did not press for a second complementary itself. At that time, the I.T.A. said that it thought that there was a case for a second system strictly competitive with the existing I.T.V., set up, perhaps, under the supervision of the Authority but with different contractors both in terms of programming and in terms of advertising revenue sought, and, failing that—because it did not want a second or third channel to go to the B.B.C.—it would not mind an educational service.
The Pilkington Committee recommended that there should be major structural alterations in I.T.V. itself—the famous recommendation 43 of Pilkington —before any consideration was given to a possible second channel for I.T.V. Those recommended structural changes had not been carried out, and although successive Governments in their various White Papers on the subject have talked about a second I.T.V. channel at some time in the future, one has to remember that neither the Pilkington Committee, with its strictures on I.T.V. 1 nor the other close study of the feasibility of a second I.T.V. made by the late lamented Prices and Incomes Board considered that this proposal was viable without major changes within the I.T.V. system.
It is the record of the I.T.A. and the 15 companies, as they have been since 1968, which causes such grave doubt about the possibility of a second service. I shall not weary the House again—we had all this on the question of the remission of part of the levy in February this year—with an account of the record of the I.T.A. in enforcing the provisions of the Television Act, notably Sections 11 and 12, upon the existing contractors. Suffice it to say that its failure to act under those Sections are under close scrutiny now by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I imagine that the representatives of the Authority will be closely questioned on their failures to impose the provisions of the Act upon the companies when that Committee meets again next year.
Many of the problems derive from the non-interventionist philosophy of the Director-General for the first 15 or 16 years of the history of I.T.V., Sir Robert Fraser. It was Sir Robert Fraser's inheritance which was referred to in the Financial Times by Mr. T. C. Worsley in what I thought was a percipient article welcoming to his post the new Director-General Mr. Brian Young. Mr. Worsley said:
…it is difficult to see how the I.T.A. can effectively make itself felt. It is charged, under the Act, with ensuring that 'programmes broadcast in each area maintain a high general standard in all respects…and a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter…' But how can it possibly do this when it has no direct control over the companies who supply the programmes? It is the companies not the Authority who decide, each individually, how they will allot the money at their disposal, and what programmes shall be made with it and who shall make them. The Authority can exhort and encourage in general terms, but it cannot insist on anything specific. It can cancel programmes, but it has no means for initiating them.
I am the first to accept that the record of the has altered to some extent since the appointment of Mr. Brian Young. There was, after all, a measure of intervention against London Weekend Television after the more ruthless incursions of Mr. Rupert Murdoch at the beginning of this year. I am not inti-I.T.V. as such. It is no part of my purpose to say that the Authority is not trying and has not tried to take some notice of the many strictures which have been levelled at it both in the House and in the Press.
Nor am I saying that I.T.V. as such should necessarily be wound up, or that the system is inimical to good broadcasting. When I worked in I.T.V., I found the companies good employers; I found many people there who had serious creative intent and who, so far as the limitations of the system allowed, were concerned with good programming.
What I do say is that those who control the system and those who, therefore, decide what goes on the air are, effectively, the five men in the networking planning committee—the five major companies within this loose confederation which decide on a basis of slot by slot which programmes to put out as network programmes. The five companies can command the necessary guaranteed

space, and these five men decide the nature of programming as we have it in this country.
There was a revealing interview, reported in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago, with the "Colossus of Crossroads", Sir Lew Grade of A.T.V., the Midlands contractor which is able to put out more than 25 per cent. of all network programming. Sir Lew was talking to the journalist about a new idea for a television series called "The Adventurer". This is what he said:
It is fantastic…Firstly, I'll get a sponsor. He'll put up two million dollars. Then I'll contact the star I have in mind. Those are the two big things. The scripts? That's the last thing we do. It must be sold before it's written".
That is Sir Lew Grade's approach to major expenditure within the system. He was interrupted at that point in the interview by the arrival of a lady called Olive. She came in to ask about some old films being put on A.T.V., and this is how the conversation ran:
So now we need 107 minutes. My God, Olive. Is that one 152? I don't mind a repeat. You got me a repeat?
Olive asked:
What about Breakfast at Tiffany's?
When did we do it last?
December 6th, 1969.
Too soon, Olive".
So they had another programme brought in, another film, Olive said:
It's too long. Here's one. It says, Sordid, preferable after 9".
Sir Lew said:
Put it in. Cut it by 21 minutes. Anything else?
Olive said that there was still a gap and again asked about "Breakfast at Tiffany's", to which the response was, "O.K.: put it in". When she had gone, Sir Lew's comment to the journalist was,
People think these schedules just happen".
Of course, they do not just happen. They are willed by Sir Lew Grade and the commercial interests which motivate him. The rationale of the whole system is to look for profitability, maximum audiences, maximum viewer figures, and good family entertainment.
In the same interview, Sir Lew Grade said:
An ideal evening for me to watch at home would be The Persuaders, or perhaps The Saint or Danger Man. Then a good half-hour comedy, like On the Buses. Then something


like The Main Chance. Throw in the news, and for me that would be a lovely evening. I could go to bed at 11 feeling really great".
Because Sir Lew Grade could go to bed feeling really great after that kind of programming on I.T.V.1, there is some doubt, to say the least, about the kind of influence the programme contractors will have, dominated by that sort of motivation, upon any I.T.V. system in which they could actively participate and which they could to some extent control.
The I.T.A. recently called for a creative conference which would look at the whole question of a possible second channel, on I.T.V.2. In a question-begging invitation, it suggested to those who were coming for that creative conference that they should consider that it must look at a complementary system for I.T.V. To my mind, that invited rebuff, and rebuffs it received. It received a rebuff from the Federation of Broadcasting Unions. It received a rebuff from many other people who were asked to go to the creative conference. Many people wrote back to say that there ought to be a public inquiry into the disposal of this public asset before they could consider how it should best be used.
Nevertheless, the Authority went ahead and produced a document called "I.T.V.2". This document has had a rather bad press, and I am not surprised at that. It has had a bad press largely because, although some newspapers may be parti-pris in this matter because of their concern for advertising and the possible disposal of advertising revenue through a second channel, no one now believes, after the sad tale of London Weekend and other cautionary histories, that propositions put forward by the companies will necessarily be honoured once contracts are signed and sealed.
The Daily Mail, hardly a Left-wing "pinko" newspaper or, indeed, one which goes a long way towards the more austere wing of taste, said:
We remember how David Frost said his London Weekend consortium would lead 'public taste on to higher ground' … and how the Welsh wizards of Harlech TV promised us a non-stop Eisteddfod. And what have we got? Hawaii Five-O and This Is Your Life. Good entertainment, but hardly worth repeating on the last available channel".
The document which has been put forward, "I.T.V.2", makes a number of points which are worth considering. It

says, first, that the existing facilities are under-utilised. So they are, but in any regional system there is bound to be excess capacity because of the capitalisation in studios which is needed in so many regional centres. One of the strengths of I.T.V. is that it has those regional centres, whereas the B.B.C. from the beginning was centralised.
Secondly, the document says that a complementary service is needed, using the existing contractors, because of the creeping menace of B.B.C.2. That is a point which Mr. Howard Thomas, the managing director of Thames Television and one of the prime movers in this scheme, has made time after time. He says, "Just watch those ratings for B.B.C.2, they are creeping up all the time."
The submission which has been published today by the T.V.4 campaign contains interesting statistics of the viewing figures for B.B.C.2, B.B.C.1, and I.T.V. The figures prove that the I.T.V. audience is now slightly better than it was when this set of measurements by A.G.B. Ltd. began, and that B.B.C.2 is taking viewers away from B.B.C.1 and not from I.T.V. I do not think that is an argument that holds water.
The third and most serious thing said in the document "I.T.V.2" is that I.T.V.1 will remain largely as it is. Paragraph 21 of the document states:
The Authority does not envisage the arrival of a second channel leading to any significant change in this balance on the first channel.… In the case of I.T.V.2, there would be advantage in a variety of programme elements so that the audience would be carried forward from diverting programmes to more demanding ones.
That is precisely what we have been asking for in I.T.V.1 programming for these many years. It is in this area that I do not think the companies can be trusted to do much to improve I.T.V.1 if they have this second channel outlet.
What has been suggested in a document which has been published as an appendix to a remarkable research document produced by the A.C.C.T. Television Commission is a shadow B.B.C.2, including "Talk Back", "Europa", "Late Night Line-up", "One man's week", and other programmes thinly disguised but quite clearly B.B.C.2 all over again. Although a gesture is made in paragraph 26 of the


"I.T.V.2" report to independent producers and minorities, the rôle of the big five contractors in the production of programmes is carefully preserved. A guaranteed slot for the big five, guaranteed slots, admittedly, on the minority second channel for the regional companies, and then a third slot which would go apparently to the big five in open competition with anyone else who wanted to come in. How is it hoped to persuade the Minister to give them this public asset?
In paragraphs 29 and 31 the I.T.A. says that it is prepared to set up a programme planning board which has added to it two I.T.A. programme planners and more regional representatives. These programme planners will be able to impose on the system, as has never been done with the network barons in the past, a degree of harmony and complementary planning and emphasis upon quality that we have not had before. I do not accept that we should give them I.T.V.2 just to test this out. The Minister could say to the I.T.A., "Yes, appoint your programme controllers, it is a very good thing. Let us see how the system works with the existing channel, because you are on probation until the system as a whole is reviewed in 1976."
The document "I.T.V.2" produces ludicrous arguments why the new channel should be introduced before that review, and in 1974. It says that by 1974 independent television will be nearly 20 years old. Jolly good, happy birthday, but I do not think that is an argument for a second channel. The document says that this would be part of an orderly progression of the television services available in this country. In 1946 there was the restart of B.B.C.1; in 1954, the start of I.T.V.; in 1964, the start of B.B.C.2 and then the I.T.A. would like to say, 1974 the start of I.T.V.2.
I do not believe that the I.T.A. has made a case, and I am alarmed that the Minister has allowed it to be thought within the country at large and by the Press that he will make a decision which may come down in favour of these proposals this month, this year or next year. What we need is a serious investigation of the whole problem of the companies and the way in which they have scheduled programmes, and a serious investigation

of complementality with two sets of Siamese twin channels to work out.
To give an example, if we had this Siamese twin system with "Panorama" and "World in Action", respectively on B.B.C.1 and I.T.V.1 and "High Chaparral" on B.B.C.2—which is cutting into audiences and alarming the I.T.V. moguls and the B.B.C.1 moguls—supposing we had a shadow "High Chaparral" on I.T.V.2? This would in no way be an increase in quality. It would simply cut down the overall areas of quality programmes to which lip service is paid. So the whole idea of complementality should be looked at seriously.
Many other possibilities have been submitted to the Minister by the A.C.T.T., and T.V.4 Campaign which has come out of nowhere, because people inside the industry and elsewhere in the media have not been prepared to stand up and see this second channel handed over to a group of private capitalists with a rather dubious record without adding their voice to the debate. I do not mind whether it is a compromise within the I.T.V. system, with a controller from the Authority, an educational channel or a minority channel, financed by the levy, partly by grants in aid, partly by advertising, or whether it is analogous to the Dutch system which we have never considered in this country. All these alternatives should he considered and sifted through the fine mesh of a public inquiry. We cannot let the I.T.A. proposals go through without proper debate.
To quote one final Conservative newspaper, The Times said that there were two objections to the proposals of the I.T.A.:
The first is that this is not the best use to which a fourth television channel could be put. The second is that the I.T.A. are seeking a premature decision on a matter which could affect the whole future of British broadcasting.
I am not sure that at the end of the day the inquiry would decide that this was not the best use; it might decide that it was, but we must have an inquiry first.
The best thing the Minister can now do is to admit to the House that he was wrong to scrap the Annan Committee and for him to set up a Committee of Inquiry. As a result of this folly he has lost 18 months during which the Committee


might have been investigating the structure. He should say that he will set up an inquiry. Perhaps he wants to say so now?

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The hon. Gentleman is returning to a once familiar theme. If there are to be 10-or 12-year terms for the B.B.C. Charter and the I.T.V. licence, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would make sense to have the greater part of each of those decades taken up with the public relations battle between broadcasting authorities that goes with an inquiry? Does he want more than half of each of those decades to be taken up with inquiries?

Mr. Whitehead: The short answer to that question is "Yes, on precedent". There have been three public inquiries so far into broadcasting, the Ullswater Inquiry, the Beveridge Inquiry and the Pilkington Inquiry. On average there was roughly 12 years in between each. I do not think that the structure of British broadcasting has been altered for the worse; quite the contrary; I think it has been altered for the better by this constant system of investigation of a new and emerging medium which is still in its infancy and which has to be guided in its development.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the major recommendation of the Pilkington Committee had been implemented the situation in television would have been better than it is?

Mr. Whitehead: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I accept. The Minister clearly does not, and he does not want another inquiry. The least he can do is to tell the I.T.A. where it can get off on these proposals which have attempted to pre-empt public debate. He can tell the House today that he will consider those proposals and all the other proposals which are being submitted to him in the light, perhaps, of a departmental inquiry or perhaps in the thought processes of his own mind, before he decides what shall be done with the last U.H.F. frequency, and indeed all the frequencies.
It is against that background that I wish to see a decision arrived at. The Minister must realise that, whether he

likes it or not, the public has become involved in this affair. This applies to the older generation, who have learned to their cost that they can be manipulated by the media and those who run it—both in the B.B.C. and in I.T.V.; and also to the younger generation, who have learned how to use broadcasting to enrich their own lives and that of the community.
Let us have a decision from the Minister tonight which opens debate and does not attempt to foreclose it. We are dealing with a public asset and the right hon. Gentleman has it in trust for us all.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: It is right that this should be the first subject for debate tonight because it is of prime importance. I, along with many other people, am very annoyed at the way in which the I.T.A. and the programme companies have ganged up to try to get control of the fourth channel. Our hope is that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will refuse to join this conspiracy.
We have been presented with a document "I.T.V.2" from the I.T.A. This has been fairly been described as an indictment of its own record to date. It can be seen almost as a coroner's report on London Weekend Television. I hope the I.T.A. is over-stating its case and that, if it fails to get I.T.V.2 or the fourth channel, we shall not be doomed to watch the never-ending opening up of the American frontier and programmes made with American mass audiences in mind.
At one point in the I.T.A. submission, in paragraph 24, there appears the most questionable statement I have ever read in an important public statement. This reads:
There is then, within the ranks of those who work for independent television broad agreement about what is wanted".
What follows suggests that they all want the fourth channel. When one looks at the document more closely it seems to be referring only to the companies. It leaves out of account the staff—those who really do work for independent television. The unions have a broad agreement, but it is of a somewhat different kind. The unions want an inquiry.
The A.C.T.T. Television Commission's Report, called significantly "T.V.4", makes clear on page 30 why it has joined


with its fellow unions in the Federation of Broadcasting Unions in rejecting the I.T.A.'s terms of reference for discussion of I.T.V.2. The Report says:
We have jointly requested a public inquiry to examine the allocation of the fourth channel in the context of changes that can be made to the broadcasting system as a whole when the Television Act and the B.B.C. Charter expire in 1976.
And this, despite the fact that superficially it appears that more jobs would be available. Whereas the contractors and the I.T.A. have looked only to commercial prosperity, the workers have looked to the public good.
The A.C.C.T. has outlined the choices that face us in allocating the fourth channel. In fact, it reminds us of eight choices. The first is not to use it at all—and I have heard Stuart Hood argue this case. Secondly, it could provide access for minority groups on the Dutch model. If this idea were adopted, I would put in a plea for its use by a majority group, such as the trade union movement, in putting its point of view to the British public.
Thirdly, it could provide an alternative as community T.V. It is pointed out that there is spare capacity in local authority television studios where educational programmes are produced. Fourthly, there could be a new publicly-financed public service network, which is a possibility; fifthly, a national education Service; sixthly, T.V.4 run by I.T.A.; seventhly, a competitive commercial channel; and, eighthly, a complementary commercial channel.
The I.T.A. as we have seen, has come out in favour of a blend of I.T.V. run by companies in their own areas, with the I.T.A. having a say in deciding what kind of programmes should be broadcast at given times on I.T.V.2. But it has not justified this choice, nor has it weighed up the alternatives with sufficient care. Since there are so many alternatives, there is a compelling demand for a public inquiry.
At the A.C.T.T. Commission says, the T.V.2 campaign can be summed up quite simply. It is that there is a threat from the B.B.C. and a prospect of disaster; that fair play demands it; that it would provide a cornucopia of opportunities for experimental programming; and that the

spare capacity within I.T.V. would be used. But if the unions, wanting jobs and greater prosperity, reject T.V.4 being turned into I.T.V.2, what are we to think?
The unions reject this suggestion on the following grounds. First, I.T.A. was established as a supervisor of competing companies when, according to Pilkington, it ought to be a master. Networking has reduced competition and the I.T.A. proposals could end competition entirely. Secondly, the financial basis of I.T.V.2 is weak. Indeed the unions are convinced that the I.T.A.-T.V. company conspiracy is purely designed to keep out a third force and to prevent anybody else from obtaining a channel. Thirdly, the uinons believe that I.T.V.2 could ultimately lead to greater instability in the industry. Fourthly, the foundation of I.T.V.2 would inevitably alter the whole structure of I.T.V. They believe that this would require a
… radical redrafting of the Television Act to strengthen the powers of the I.T.A.
The unions wish to present their point of view to an inquiry and many of us now regret the precipitate way in which the Minister sacked the Annan Committee. But the unions are not alone in wanting an inquiry. Recently I attended a T.V.4 campaign meeting which was attended not only by militants and independents but also by members of the Bow Group. There was a wide spread of people within the industry and in the community at large who were insistent on the need for an independent inquiry. The division now seems not to be, as used to be the case, between Oxford and Cambridge, but between B.B.C. and I.T.V. in the sort of antagonisms and rivalries which this subject engenders.
Many of us who have never been associated with the television industry share the feelings of the Sunday Times article of 17th October. That leading article was headed, "I.T.V.2: a case not proven". It said:
Any suggestion that I.T.V.2 would resemble B.B.C. should be treated with the blackest scepticism.… It would be better for the fourth channel—a national and public asset—to be left empty than made available for anyone who would cause it to resemble the present commercial network.
Most people, apart from my young son Simon, who enjoys the test card and the advertisements if not the programmes, will agree with that assessment.
London Weekend Television has taught us a lesson. So have the words of John Freeman. On 17th November, he said:
London Weekend Television cannot explore minority or experimental programmes in peak hours, without a direct, often catastrophic loss of revenue which is impossible to accept if we are to stay in business.
Many people fear that the same statement will be made about the fourth channel if it is given to independent television. But it will not be made now. It will be made in five or six years, when it will be too late.
For those reasons, I should like to see the Minister defer his decision until an inquiry has taken place. Certainly no decision should be taken until the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries reports on the I.T.A. The Minister was negligent in his reply to me on this subject when I asked him on 8th December:
Is the Minister aware that his reply shows no recognition that today the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries begins an inquiry into the I.T.A? Will he assure us that he will wait for the Select Committee's report before making any announcement about the allocation of the fourth channel?
In his usual rapid way, the Minister popped up and said:
I have not been led to believe that that inquiry is an inquiry into the services which the I.T.A. provides."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 1271.]
That was a nonsensical answer. The Select Committee is charged with examining the reports and accounts of the I.T.A., and any Minister responsible for a Department such as the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications should be aware of that fact.
The report and accounts for 1970–71 includes the statement:
A second independent television service would enable a more substantial extension to take place. Whether a second I.T.A. service would be viable is a matter which calls for close examination …
The I.T.A. itself has made this an issue in its annual report. It is only reasonable, therefore, that the Select Committee should inquire into this matter, and it is even more reasonable that the Minister should await the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
However, this is not sufficient. What happens with the fourth channel should be considered not only in relation to what

is happening in independent television. That decision should be dependent, too, on an assessment of what is happening in the B.B.C., especially following an assessment of the use to which B.B.C.2 is being put.
We want a committee of inquiry to replace Annan, and we want a report in good time before 1972. The arguments of the I.T.A. in favour of speed do not hold water. We must agree with the A.C.T.T. that the authority is concerned only with preventing someone else controlling the channel. It is apparent from the I.T.A.'s submission that the argument in favour of speed at present is that changes have occurred in the television industry previously at nine-year intervals. I do not know how it can justify a change after 10 years rather than after 12 years. How it can argue that it has had two nine-year periods and that that is a sufficient argument or any argument at all that we should make a decision quickly rather than waiting until 1976, which is the logical thing to do, I do not know.
Our last television channel is too important to be given away lightly, and I urge the Minister to refrain from making any decision until we have had a full and thorough public inquiry into the subject.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his Parliamentary Private Secretary greatly enjoyed the Speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I detect that the hon. Gentleman is developing a hoarse voice. Tomorrow in the Committee which is considering the Sound Broadcasting Bill I look forward to hearing a little less from the hon. Gentleman, having listened to him for a total of about four hours in the last two or three weeks.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend to walk straight out of the Chamber after this debate and to strike a blow for freedom by permitting television to be broadcast at whatever hours are felt desirable. The 1964 Act gives my right hon. Friend power to do it. He can alter the maximum and the minimum number of hours of television broadcasts.
I feel that the time has come, the B.B.C. having two channels and independent television only one, for freedom to


be given in the way that I suggest. I look forward to seeing morning television. Very good news programmes could be broadcast in the mornings such as are to be seen in America and other countries. Repeat programmes could bring pleasure to people who are at work when television programmes are to be seen at present. A lot more people would be able to see some of the very good programmes which at the moment are available only in the evenings.
Undoubtedly, this would take away some circulation from our morning newspapers. That prospect does not worry me. What would happen is that, in the first two or three years, our national dailies would lose perhaps a million circulation. I can face that, because I do not think that there would be a great loss if that happened.
I ask myself why this freedom of hours has not been given before today. The simple answer is to be found in the monopoly position of the B.B.C., which at present has two-thirds of the channels. Its monopoly power takes the form of leaning on independent television and stopping it having longer hours, the argument being that the B.B.C. cannot squeeze more time out of the present licence fee.
I offer my right hon. Friend a suggestion. I suggest that he allows the B.B.C. to put out advertisements. What is more, I propose that they be called solus advertisements, and that they should be put out between programmes, instead of taking advantage of natural breaks, and that there should be only one advertisement between programmes. I feel that that would be acceptable to the public. Certainly it would keep the B.B.C.'s expenditure within bounds without the necessity of increasing the licence fee still further. At present, we have plenty of non-commercial commercials on B.B.C. programmes. B.B.C.1 advertises B.B.C.2, and B.B.C.2 advertises B.B.C.1. There is little wonder that the B.B.C. is making headway in terms of viewing figures against the single independent channel.
In 1975, when the B.B.C. Charter and the position of independent television are due for review, I hope that we shall take a different look at the business of broadcasting with a view to establishing a British broadcasting authority or a

British communications authority on much the same lines as the American Federal Communications Commission. This would have continuous supervision of all the channels. It would not have to wait for this 10-year period mentioned by hon. Members opposite. It would be a continuing type of control, and it would be much healthier if the I.T.V. companies did not have the threat hanging over them constantly. Indeed, the F.C.C. is empowered to fine radio and television companies if they are technically unreliable or break down, or do not broadcast programmes they have advertised.
If we had this type of commission or authority, I would ask that B.B.C.1 and 2, and the radios, be regarded just the same as Yorkshire Television, Granada, Tyne-Tees, Southern or any of them, and that the same kind of rules of behaviour should apply whether the service is publicly owned, paid for by licence fee or paid for by advertising.
I urge my right hon. Friend that the fourth channel should be given to separate commercial companies from those existing at present. I do not accept the argument in the pamphlet "I.T.V.2". When one considers that in America the N.B.C., for instance, has three producers, whereas the B.B.C. has about 200—perhaps N.B.C. is a bigger outfit than the B.B.C.—perhaps we have the whole thing wrong in the way programmes are produced.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is totally contradicting himself. What he is now describing in America is the direct cause of having like against like on all three channels—the tyranny of no choice, yet three competing alternatives.

Mr. Proudfoot: I do not accept that it is as the hon. Gentleman said. There are alternatives. New York has nine television programmes; Los Angeles has 12. The more competition that we get into this business, the better it will be.
We could talk for ever about the quality of television programmes. One man's quality is not necessarily the same as the next man's quality. Perhaps we in this Chamber run away with the idea that the great British public are thirsting for extra knowledge on all kinds of subjects; but perhaps they just want to be entertained and amused. I have sat in


front of my television set and been frightened and terrorised; my nerves have been jangled, and I have sat on the edge of my seat. That is not the kind of home life that I want. I prefer something much more relaxing than some of the stuff we receive.
If we had longer hours, I am confident that the whole style of most of our television programmes would change. A more relaxed style would be introduced. In Britain we still suffer from the Gilbert Harding syndrome, namely that if there is not a jolly good row going on on the box when it is a talk programme, it is worth watching. We have never recovered from this. I shall never forget being in New York on the day that Randolph Churchill was on television. He had a row with the questioner. On the next day, everyone I met in New York was shocked and horrified that that kind of argument—absolutely mild by our standards—should have come across on their television screens.
The type of approach I have seen on American talk programmes has been very often preferable to ours. I have seen a programme of over three hours on a Sunday afternoon in which people whom I call egg-heads were discussing foreign affairs. We have never had a counterpart on our television sets.
If one buys the trade Press of America on broadcasting, one is surprised to see there advertisements for off-the-peg programmes which we listen to every night—the "I Love Lucy" shows and the cowboy shows, are all there; it is just the same as buying an off-the-peg suit. They are there to be bought. It is obvious how this has happened.
The idea that our I.T.V. stations have great regional content is a myth. The four centres have been created in this country for production and much money has been invested in some of the stations. But now we have a chronic situation. If one is at a television station in Yorkshire for the odd broadcast on a talk programme, one finds a whole bunch of actors who have obviously come from London, about to put on a half-hour series. At a later date one finds out that they all come from London—because the creative people all collect in one city, in every country; America has its Hollywood. The crazy thing is that

one finds that they practice and rehearse the sketches, the half-hour programmes, in schools, churches and chapels around London. They rehearse them, go up to Yorkshire, do a dry run and then put the thing in the can in Yorkshire. That is called regional television. It is like having each garage being a production outfit or every cinema being its own producer. To a certain extent we have the organisation wrong.
I mentioned that Los Angeles had 12 channels. I still cannot comprehend technically why we cannot have more in Britain. But perhaps the debate is absolutely out of date, because cable television must come, and come rapidly. One small town in the United States has 30 television programmes now. The signal is taken into a building in the centre of the town, cleaned up electronically and sent out again for subscription. They have the choice of 30 programmes. Perhaps the debate should concentrate more on what will happen in the very near future, rather than thinking that there will be just four television channels in the next few years.
I conclude by quoting one or two lines from a criticism of a book—the same book I quoted on the Sound Broadcasting Bill. The title of the book is "The News Twisters". During the recent election in the United States, when the three news networks put out many news stories on the election over the election campaign period, in seven weeks a young lady tape recorded the lot. She ended up by scoring the remarks about Nixon and finding out, much to the horror of the owners of the stations, that they were nine to one against Nixon. I am convinced that the same kind of thing happens here, just as much with I.T.V. as it does with the B.B.C.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Which way?

Mr. Proudfoot: If I took my tape recorder and did the same kind of thing, I am sure that I would know which way. Hon. Members opposite would say that it was tilted in our favour, and my hon. Friends would say that it was tilted in favour of hon. Members opposite. That is the normal reaction of politicians. But the young lady decided that what she


was really talking about was "mind-set" amongst the communicators:
A mind-set that perceives the world in liberal (or left-of-liberal) terms and a self-righteousness …
which stops them being critical about things. She enumerates 33 different ways that the questioners and producers have of twisting the news. I quote them as quickly as possible. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognise some of the techniques.
Inventing an anonymous source who expresses the newscaster's own opinions. These opinions then get introduced in such phrases as: 'observers point out …', 'experts here in Washington believe …', and so on.
We hear these phrases on television every day.
Presenting both sides of an issue—but then winding up with a highly tendentious 'summary' or 'recapitulation.' Suppressing negative information that would clash with the newscaster's own view of a subject. 'Mind reading ', wherein the newscaster glibly and casually ascribes motives to large numbers of people—students, blacks, white suburbanites, or whatever.
Then the critic says that he has one of his own:
The newscaster's seeking out the most extreme spokemen for points of view he wishes to discredit.
We see that happening on television here every night. The extremists are very often, at either end of a programme, those who are presented on television. It is another example of the Gilbert Harding syndrome on British television.
The lady who did this book then comes to perhaps the most important thing of all when she asks how do we get fairness of news media in television, and I think that she has the only possible answer when she says:
Perhaps the most promising remedy in prospect is technological rather than governmental. On the horizon is cable-television broadcasting, which in time will so multiply the number of available channels as to make the issue of fairness irrelevant. One of these days, we may have openly partisan news networks, just as we now have openly partisan newspapers.
I am sure that one day that will be the only way by which we shall feel that when we sit at home watching television we are not being "got at", because we shall have as many as 30 programmes from which to choose. When that day arrives, there will be such a choice of

subject matter coming over the box that those who wish to be educated and edified will be able to go through that process for 18 hours a day, while those who wish to be amused and watch cowboys will have a similar choice.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) suggested that there was a remarkable similarity between the cast of tonight's performance and that which has been appearing twice weekly until now, which I believe is forecast to appear twice daily and which, possibly, because the right hon. Gentleman is so exhilerated with it, will carry on all night.
There is this evening a certain similarity of personnel and though we are in fact debating a different subject from that being debated in Committee, the two subjects are connected. There is a similarity between them because what is being proposed in Committee is that the Independent Television Authority should take over and become responsible for commercial radio in this country. It will start with the appearance of local radio, but what it will finish up by looking like is another question. I suspect that it will finish up as something like an alternative commercial radio network.
Be that as it may, what we are debating tonight—and we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for raising the matter—is a fourth channel for television. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that he has no intention of giving way to the heavy pressure that has been placed upon him by the Independent Television Authority to pre-empt the fate of the fourth channel. It is natural that the Authority should attempt to do that, and it is being remarkably successful, because it is persuading people to think in terms of I.T.V.2. We ought not to allow ourselves to think in such terms.
I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid to the examination carried out by the Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians, with the assistance of a remarkable young researcher, Caroline Heller. It is a good thing that the trade union concerned should carry out an objective examination of what goes on


in the industry with which it is involved, and I am sure that no one, whatever his views about the future of television, would be disposed to dismiss lightly the conclusions of this report.
I believe that the nub of the problem is who controls the existing television channel. The reason why some of us feel doubtful about giving control of commercial radio to the Independent Television Authority, and why we feel equally doubtful about giving that Authority control of Channel 4, is that the Authority is wrongly organised. This is not a new idea. The Pilkington Committee came to the same conclusion. When that Committee considered whether the Authority should have control of another channel, the view given to it was that
in the Authority's opinion there would be a vice in a restricted broadcasting system, not a virtue … In a free society, control of the means of communications should be diversified not centralised.
That was the view expressed by the Independent Television Authority to the Pilkington Committee. The Authority therefore stands hoist by its own petard.
The Authority is now seeking to gain control of commercial radio and of the fourth channel, but at the time of Pilkington, in criticising the B.B.C.'s case for a complementary programme, the Authority referred to weaknesses which now exist in its own case. Therefore, when we are considering whether the fourth channel should go to an existing body we must remember that variety is of the essence in the whole sphere of communication.
The central flaw which the Pilkington Committee saw in the Independent Television Authority was that there was a tendency for the programme contractors to be on top of the Authority, instead of the other way round, and to try to correct that the Pilkington Committee suggested an organisational change. It suggested that the Authority should plan programming, that the Authority should sell advertising time, and that the programme companies should produce programmes and sell them to the Authority for inclusion in the I.T.A. schedules. The Pilkington Committee went on to say that if independent television, after being reconstituted and reorganised along the lines suggested, had sufficient time to adapt itself to a new constitution and had

proved its capacity to realise the purposes of broadcasting, it should be authorised to provide a second programme. But that was on condition that the whole organisation of the I.T.A. was put on a different basis.
When the Independent Television Authority says that if it is given the fourth channel it will call for a greater involvement by the Authority in programme planning, we are entitled to say that the Authority will find it extremely difficult to carry out that undertaking because its constitution is such that it will not be permitted to carry it out by people who hold the whip hand, namely, the programme contractors. That is why on many occasions when programme contractors have come along with prospectuses London Weekend—or Harlech, or whatever it is—have said that they will do something different there has been no change, precisely because the organisation is geared to the production of the same old thing.
The Authority should not have the fourth channel. My reasons have been summed up in the report to which I referred. There is no guarantee that the amount of advertising is infinitely expandable. It is not certain that the new channel would have a separate and fresh form of income. The Authority might simply prevent another competitor from getting hold of it and two programmes would have to be provided with the same sort of resources as are now available for one. That result would not benefit anyone.
The competitive position of struggling for advertising funds is not controlled, as the A.C.T.T. has pointed out, by the Authority, but is subject to commercial radio arriving, to manufacturers' marketing policies and to advertising agencies. There is no evidence that a two-channel operation would affect the situation. I.T.V.2, as even this report falls into the trap of calling it, would thus be unable substantially to increase the revenue or correct the inherent instability of I.T.V.'s income.
Another reason is that the suggestion of high quality programming is given no backing to show how it will be achieved. We are entitled to ask, if we are promised some change, for information on how it will be achieved. If the Authority said that it would carry out an experiment


along the lines of the Pilkington recommendations for this new channel, that it would constitute itself the "house-owner" and be responsible for the channel rather like a theatre owner, inviting production companies to put on shows, we might have taken its claims more seriously. But as it is we are entitled to look at them with grave doubts.
The arrival of I.T.V.2 would mean a reinforcement of the power and authority of the big five, who already control the commercial television channel. I share the view which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North so cogently expressed, that we should consider this with great care and caution.
Having precipitately decided to get rid of the Annan Committee, the Minister may feel in some difficulty about recreating a similar committee. He might feel that, rather than a Royal Commission, he would like some other form of examination. I am sure that detailed examination should take place before he makes his proposals.
One of the reasons for our difficulties over the Sound Broadcasting Bill is that this has not been done. That detailed examination is now taking place in Committee, after the Bill has been printed. This is why we are in trouble. Not only are we on this side uncertain about what should happen in commercial radio: hon. Members opposite are equally uncertain.
So I would ask the Minister not to bring forward a similar mish-mash for the fourth channel. He should create an examining committee whether it is a Royal Commission or a committee of inquiry. We should have a thorough examination of the subject. Then, a recommendation similar to the Pilkington Recommendation will surely come forward. The conclusion of any authoritative body which considers television must be that variety and reality of choice, instead of programme matching, can be achieved only through variety of ownership and separation of control. It is on these lines that I hope the hon. Gentleman will eventually come into the House.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: It is always a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member

for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). Equally I am indebted to my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for initiating this important debate, to which they brought the same lucidity, objectivity and indeed brevity which I have seen demonstrated by them on the Standing Committee on the Sound Broadcasting Bill.
I hope that this debate will be the start of a great national debate about whether the nation should allocate a fourth television channel. I hope that the Minister will encourage such a debate, since this decision will have a tremendous impact on the community and on family life.
I was interested to read on 9th December the submissions of the Independent Television Authority on this important question and I am mindful of the consideration which the Pilkington Committee gave the establishment of commercial television.
I was positively fascinated by the evidence given to that Committee in 1961 by a representative of Southern Television —I believe that his name was Mr. Dowson—who examined the argument and basis of commercial television in respect of programming. On the suggestion that it might cater for minority interests, particularly opera lovers, he said that it would be "impractical" because the independent programme contractors were interested in attracting a mass audience.
If we are to have an additional channel, minority interests should be considered, as should education and public information. I am mindful of the evidence of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians to which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney referred. In Appendix 3 it makes the point that the original concept of I.T.V. was a network of regional companies each identifying itself with its region.
One of the unfortunate features of television in Britain is that the regional identity is not as pronounced as it might be. We should endeavour to reflect to a greater extent the regional culture which is one of the more attractive features of community life in this country.
We look at television in the context of the splendid job which the British Broadcasting Corporation does and in the context of the interesting and fascinating


programmes provided by many of the independent television companies. If the Minister accepts my call for a great debate on this issue, I hope that he will also look at the possibility of having regional public service broadcasting. I should like him to encourage independent public-spirited groups in the regions and to give them the franchise for providing programmes of a cultural and educational nature catering for the minorities to which I have referred, thus giving the regions greater regional identity.
Inevitably, the question will arise: how is it to be financed? Is it to be financed by direct subsidy from the B.B.C.? Is there to be a separate television licence for regional public service broadcasting? All these suggestions can be considered. The Minister might also consider—I put it no higher—establishing regional public service broadcasting on the basis of the sale of advertising spot time, the revenue from which should be the basis for financing regional public service broadcasting.
I should like the bodies responsible for regional public service broadcasting to be the universities in the regions, together with local authority representatives and, indeed, many of the minority community interests to which I have referred.
We should examine the idea of a university of the screen. We have seen the development of the University of the Air. I should like to see this idea developed further. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the time has arrived, on the basis of regional public service broadcasting, for a university of the screen.
Additionally I should like programmes to be provided for the disabled and the deaf in the regions. He might consider the development of educational broadcasting catering for nursery school children who cannot gain entrance to nursery schools because of the inadequacy of provision in many local authority areas.
Indeed, I should like local authorities to come into the public service broadcasting idea. There should be a dialogue between the governed and those responsible for government in the counties, the cities and the regions. I should like to see a proper community relationship engendered between bodies such as the Lancashire County Council, the Manchester City Council and the Liverpool City

Council and the communities they serve. Such an opportunity might be provided if we do not allocate the fourth channel solely on the basis of commercial considerations.
The decision on the allocation of the fourth television channel will be crucial to our national, and indeed community affairs. I hope that the Minister will not take this decision lightly and will not hurry it. I hope that he will give the nation the opportunity of representing views to him and that he will consider them carefully.
When the I.T.A. presented its views, the Minister quite rightly said that he would consider them carefully. I hope that he will encourage other sections of the community to put their views to him on this important subject.
There is no need to hurry the decision. We have all the time in the world. In the context of national financial resources, I do not think that the allocation of an additional television channel is so urgent. I hope that the Minister will use the time available to take account of all the views represented to him and that he will pay regard to the views expressed by hon. Members in the debate.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on initiating the debate.
Quite a lot has been said about the fourth channel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) has the Adjournment and there are many more subjects to follow, I will be brief. I will not range as widely on this subject as my hon. Friends; I will speak to a narrow point.
No case has been made out for a fourth channel at the moment. There is no proof that it is necessary. But I am firmly of the opinion that when we have the fourth channel it should be operated by a public corporation and not left to commercial enterprise. I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I am not such a purist as to say that everything the B.B.C. does is right and everything the I.T.A. puts over is wrong. On balance, in the little time that I watch television, I look at more I.T.A. than B.B.C. programmes. I am stating how I feel about


it. In my opinion, one commercial channel is enough.
I want to take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), who is not in his place at the moment. He said that in his opinion a fourth channel would affect the newspapers, especially if we had more channels and had television programmes in the morning as well as in the afternoon and evenings, but that it would not very much matter. I take issue with him, because it is not an educationally sound prospect that, if we have a fourth channel, there will be fewer papers to read, or the papers will be available but people will not read them because they will be watching television.
The hon. Gentleman, in saying that he looked forward to the day when there will be 20 channels, thrust out his arms as if to embrace all the I.T.A. and commercial networks which would arrive to supplement B.B.C.1 and B.B.C.2. I think that he would like that because he is in that line of business. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if he were speaking from an aeroplane which was in a nosedive. He said that we must have freedom of choice. I was taught in the 1930s that we have always had freedom of choice providing that we had the money. I was told that there was nothing to stop one from going into the Savoy Hotel, but that one would be thrown out if one did not have the money.
Before we have freedom of choice as regards the fourth channel, let us have freedom of choice for everybody to receive the three existing channels. About 2 million people cannot watch television on any set of their own because they cannot afford a set.
In the debates on the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill last Session one hon. Member opposite suggested that the television licence fee be halved so as to enable that vast number of people to be able to afford the fee. We beat that in Committee, and the Government were defeated by seven votes to six on an Amendment I had tabled to secure that the licence fee for old people should be cut to the same amount as that applying to people living in one unit of accommodation who have communal television facilities—namely, 5p a year.
On that occasion the Minister concerned made a long speech pointing out that it was not possible. Whether or not that was possible, and whether it is a public corporation or a commercial enterprise that has the fourth channel, it will still cost Parliament £X million out of the Consolidated Fund. That money could be better used to enable old people, if not to pay a licence fee of 5p, at any rate to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of the present licence fee.
Old people do not want television for educational purposes; 98 per cent. of them watch it for entertainment. I am not such a purist that I do not like watching television for entertainment. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough said that with 20 channels Westerns could be watched on one channel, sport on another, sex on another, and so on.
Some years ago, on a visit to the Soviet Union, I visited one of the palaces of culture. My host said to me, "Mr. Harper, you see the chandelier?" I said, "Yes, I could not miss it". My host said, "Beautiful chandelier. It cost 500,000 roubles". I had one eye on the chandelier and was looking with the other eye out of the window at some "hen huts" in which the people were then living. I then said, "Why could you not spend that 500,000 roubles on decent accommodation for the people to live in?" My host said, "Nothing is too good for the workers".
I believe that analogy is apt in any discussion about the fourth television channel. What is the good of a fourth television channel if people cannot look at the three that we have already? I exhort the Minister to weigh the pros and cons. In my list of priorities the old people come first. Let us first enable everyone to look at the three existing channels before we start talking about the fourth, fifth, sixth, right up to the twentieth channel that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough wanted to see come into operation, with him no doubt being the managing director of them all.
The lesson of this debate is that we should see how we can help the old people to have television now or in the immediate future at a price that they can afford to pay. That is of paramount importance and is much more important than any talk about having a fourth


channel when so many people cannot watch the three channels that already exist.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I hesitate to intervene because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) said, I shall be speaking on the Adjournment at a much later hour and I have no wish to postpone that hour.
However, I have been stimulated by some of the comments made by my hon. Friends and by the controversy that is raging on the question of the fourth channel. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, in that I would not argue that we do not need a fourth channel. In view of the potential of television, we must look ahead and be prepared to devote more of the national resources to this tremendous medium.
I have in mind the possibilities for television in schools. I have personal experience, as a headmaster, of some of the school television programmes. School television has widened children's interests and made a great contribution, but much remains to be done.
The advent of the commercial outlook in television, with its concentration on the mass audience, has prevented us from developing television as a public service, which is how I should like to see it develop. I am not saying that we should restrict the development of television, but we must be concerned with certain priorities.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) talked glibly about 25 channels and about people watching television 24 hours a day. The hon. Gentleman said that we wanted freedom of choice. That will sound a little odd to a great number of my constituents who are paying the licence fee but who cannot receive B.B.C.2.
Further, some of my constituents receive I.T.V. only through a piped service for which they pay a weekly charge. I think that that is robbery with violence, but I believe in choice, and if people want to watch I.T.V. they should be able to do so. However, it is an imposition that these people must make a weekly contribution to a private firm for this public service and then at the same

time read all the Press comments and hear the glib talk about all the channels which will shortly be available, with cable television just round the corner. The main priority for my constituents is to be able to see the services that the rest of the country now take for granted. My constituents pay the same licence fee and they have a right to the same service.
We are missing an opportunity to develop truly regional services. I am disappointed in the regional service given by both B.B.C. and I.T.V. The North has a great number of closely knit communities. The largest town in my constituency has a population of 12,000. Almost every village community has its brass band. We have some first-class male voice choirs. The North has a culture very much its own which enhances the quality of life there.
I am disappointed that television, because of its obsession with the mass audience, pursues so much that is trivial and mediocre, and it is becoming very boring.
The B.B.C. in the North is run on a shoestring. The newscasters give a first-class service, but they read the early morning news on sound radio, they are there again at lunchtime, and they read the news on television at night. It is about time the Northern Region had its fair share of the resources which are going into this public corporation. The undoubtedly talented people who are running the service there should be enabled to give the Northern Region the type of service which they are anxious to give.
Tyne-Tees has attempted to give a regional service. But it is handicapped by the constant pressure that there is, as there must be when the medium is controlled by advertising to strive for the mass audience. When I think of the closely-knit communities and the community associations in the North, of the tremendous amount of voluntary activity and the first-class entertainment provided in villages and towns throughout the North, I feel that television is missing a great opportunity. There is plenty of talent there and plenty of opportunity for good regional television. The Minister should be encouraging the television authorities to give far more attention to that kind of development than talking


glibly about the great expansion we are to have.
We must make up our minds whether the priority is to be public service, by which I do not mean service to people who happen to live in the big conurbations. I mean by that that people in the most remote village in my constituency must get just as good a service as those in the middle of the conurbations.
I do not want to push education down people's throats. I want to give them plenty of choice. But when we recognise the tremendous potential of television, its great power as it is piped into every home in the country, we realise that there are bigger considerations than the mass audience, satisfying the advertisers and so on, the commercial considerations so prominent in the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. We must use this great medium to entertain people, but we must also use it to improve the quality of life, and we are not doing that now if the Minister is not ready to stand up to the commercial pressures being exerted upon him.
There is no urgency to make the decision. The Minister should wait for the inquiry. The very important considerations I have mentioned demand that we give time to examine the situation from all sides, and that we remember that public service should take precedence over the desire of folk who want to make a pile of money quickly.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: This has been a very useful debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for giving us the opportunity to air the problem.
When the debate started I felt that it was rather like being in the Sound Broadcasting Bill Committee. When I saw the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) appear at the Bar of the House it seemed as though we were perhaps discussing the wrong matters.
It is useful to have a public airing of the topic at this stage, because there is now widespread public concern that the I.T.A., by its proposals for an I.T.V.2, has tried to jump the gun, attempting to

pre-empt a decision that clearly need not be taken at this stage, and that by attempting to pre-empt that decision now all that it is doing is to submit proposals designed not to create a fourth television channel of great social benefit to the country but rather to deprive anybody else of getting it.
There has been virtually no support in the Press for the proposals. I do not propose to read many quotations, because I am sure that the Minister will have had them pointed out to him, but it is worth noting one or two. For example, The Guardian said on 9th December:
Mr. Chataway, representing the viewers, needs to look at the fourth channel on a much wider basis than the I.T.A. has done. He should establish soon a major inquiry into how to produce the best and most varied service that the country is prepared to pay for.
The Daily Telegraph of the same date said:
If it were the case that a fourth television channel was an urgent necessity then this argument might be sufficient; but it is hard to see why there needs to be any hurry. On the contrary, since there will have to be a general review of broadcasting policy before 1976, when the B.B.C. charter comes up for renewal and the present commercial contracts come to an end, there is everything to be said for putting off a decision until the review has been completed. This would enable a number of other possibilities for the fourth channel to be considered.
The Sun called the I.T.V. proposals
Insufferable Effrontery
and the Daily Mail said:
There's no hurry for I.T.V.2 and not much money to pay for it. Mr. Chataway would do best to wait until the charters of both B.B.C. and I.T.A. run out in five years' time.
Then he could overhaul the whole structure of television from top to bottom"—
a somewhat egalitarian sentiment from the Daily Mail—
and make sure that it is the viewers not the tycoons who profit.
That is a sentiment with which I wholly agree.
The Financial Times said
Mr. Chataway, who has now received the official proposals of the I.T.A., would do best to reply in the manner proposed by the 'TV4' Campaign.…
Sean Day-Lewis wrote in the Daily Telegraph:
I fervently hope that the Government will be persuaded to delay its decision at least


until all alternatives to I.T.V.2 have been carefully explored.
In the Evening Standard on 8th December Milton Shulman wrote:
I would guess that there are no more than 300 people in the entire land, and that is probably an over-estimate, who firmly believe that it is wise and desirable to set up I.T.V.2 at this time without a general inquiry …
I am happy that this debate is taking place, because it gives me an opportunity on behalf of the Opposition to make our point of view on the I.T.A.'s proposals crystal clear. We are firmly and definitely opposed to the allocation of the fourth channel to I.T.V. at this stage. If it is to be allocated now, we would nevertheless wish its allocation and its future to be included in the terms of reference of the inquiry the Minister will clearly have to set up before 1976. We would certainly not wish any decision he took now on the allocation of a fourth channel to pre-empt the considerations or the deliberations of that inquiry.
It is worth while examining the I.T.V. proposals. The document containing them is rather an odd combination, being pretentious in some parts and over-pious in others. Neither of those two attributes is particularly justified by the terms of the document or its proposals. It concludes first that:
there is a strong case for a second I.T.V. service;…
When I read that, having a nasty, inquiring legal sort of mind, I asked, if there was a strong case for a second I.T.V. channel, what evidence there was to support it. I looked for it in the document. But one looks in vain in it for any evidence of public demand at this stage for the additional service. Not only is the document silent in terms of public demand but, on page 8, it concedes that there is no such public demand. It says:
The case for the introduction of a second service is based upon the programming restrictions which must exist in a single service.
In other words, the I.T.A. is saying, "We cannot produce evidence of great public demand for a second I.T.A. channel but, clearly, since running one service imposes some restrictions on us in the treatment of our programme content, the introduction of a second service must therefore be necessary." The document goes on to say:

The Authority is charged by Section 1 (4) of the Television Act to provide 'a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment' and to secure 'a proper balance and wide range' in the subject-matter of the programmes; but it is obvious that within the confines of a single service, there cannot be as wide a representation of the tastes and interests of the audience as a whole, and those of the various groups within it, as there can be with two jointly planned services.
There are two arguments there by implication in support of the I.T.A. case. The first is that there is public demand and the second is the assumption that the second channel would provide a proper balance and range which is at present lacking. I do not believe it and I hope to persuade the Minister that he should not believe it either.
The document then says, as a heading to Part IV:
I.T.V.2 Complementary to and Not Competitive with I.T.V.1.
That is a wholly admirable sentiment. God forbid that we should have two I.T.V.1's competing with one another for the same audience or the same type of audience, and putting out the same type of programmes. If they are to be complementary to each other and not competitive, it is worth looking again at the document to see what sort of programmes they will be able to put out. On page 10, paragraph 19 starts with the ringing statement:
It is time to be more specific about some of the fields in which opportunities would arise:
It then lists 11 of them. I ask the House to note them, and I ask whether it really believes if this is what a second I.T.A. channel would provide:


"(i) It would be possible to deal in greater depth and detail, and more frequently, with current affairs, with arts and sciences, with political, economic, and social issues."
(ii) In an age of increased leisure, television can support a wide range of leisure pursuits; some of these, like gardening and motoring, have very wide appeal, while many others command smaller followings but equal, or greater, devotion.
(iii) To travel vicariously…
(iv) It is desirable to stimulate the production of programmes of an experimental nature.…
(v) Extended coverage would be possible for a number of sporting events of all kinds.…
(vi) It is an incentive towards excellence in educational and other serious programme


fields if better viewing times are available for some of this output."
The new service would have a newspaper correspondence column. Another point is that in a two-channel service there would be
…scope for the planned repeating of worthwhile programmes of all kinds between the two channels.
Point (ix) says that more programmes could be taken from the regions and fed into the network, which would encourage, according to (x), independent programme makers and—according to point (xi)—there would be more programmes in Welsh. Thus, we are presented with the prospect of a wholly admirable mixture of complementary programmes to those put out by I.T.V.1.

Mr. Whitehead: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that the best we could say for competition between I.T.V.2 and B.B.C.2, if we get I.T.V.2, is that it would be like against like, and that, in discounting the case for competition between two I.T.V. channels, the Authority says that all the evidence suggests that competitive planning did not enlarge the range of choice? Indeed, it did not. It narrowed it, and it would so narrow choice between I.T.V.2 and B.B.C.2 if they were the same kind of programmes.

Mr. Richard: I see the argument. All things are relative. Two competitive channels is an infinitely worse prospect to me than two which are designed and intended to be complementary one to the other. It is perhaps worth asking whether we would get this if the second channel went to the I.T.A. The document itself almost disproves these possibilities on page 12, where there appear these chilling words:
The companies, without exception, took the view that a second service, run on the lines so far described, was indeed possible and desirable. It was plain that the establishment of such a service could not be a very rewarding prospect financially for the companies, and indeed, for the first few years at least, would be almost certain to reduce profitability.
That is the document put out by the I.T.A. On what we know about the existing financial position of the programme companies I am not encouraged to believe that they will undertake the sort of public subsidy that would be

necessary to put out I.T.V.2 on the lines set out here.
I quote Mr. Aidan Crawley on this in 1970, commenting on a Prices and Incomes Board's Report when he said:
Instead of being a goose laying an endless succession of golden eggs, I.T.V. has become a high risk industry.
I do not believe that a high risk industry will pursue a service which is not a rewarding prospect for the companies and would be almost certain to reduce profitability.
Secondly, I am not very impressed with the proposals made in the document for a greater degree of central control by the Independent Television Authority over the programme companies. There is little in the past history of the relationship between I.T.A. and the programme companies to encourage me to believe that in future the Authority will be any firmer or more successful with the companies than it has been in the past. It would clearly need a very tight central programme control to make the structure of the proposed complementary service viable in any shape or form.
Promises are cheap, but in television it seems that performance becomes extraordinarily expensive. The pressures would be in the direction of audience maximisation. The companies would finance themselves by selling advertisements, and if they were to do that they would need to go for the mass audience. The effect of that is that they would not be able to provide that complementary service.
I conclude that the proposals submitted by the I.T.A. are economically nonviable, that the expression of hope as to the future standards of programme are impossible of attainment, and I further believe that the I.T.A. is not really capable of exercising the degree of control necessary to ensure that standards are maintained and promises kept.
There are an enormous number of alternatives which I will not spell out. I hope that the Minister has a copy of this document produced by the A.C.T.T. which is extraordinarily well-documented, and well argued. It is one of the best background briefings on this subject that I have been sent within the last month or so. Faced with this position—that there are a large number of alternatives,


that this is the final television channel of this sort that will be capable of being allocated, faced with the fact that in 1976 the charters run out and the contracts come to an end—what should the Minister do now? I hope that he will accept our proposals for an inquiry or at least consider them more seriously than in the past. Whatever might be said about his proposal to abolish the Annan Committee, and I make no party point here, I suspect that the Minister would dearly like to have an independent body to which he could at least refer this problem.
In the course of the debate on commercial radio I said to the Minister that broadcasting in some ways was a peculiarly public thing—almost everyone is a consumer, everyone has a view about broadcasting and the sort of programmes they would like, and it is essential for the Minister to conduct those discussions as publicly as he can. It would be very wrong for the Minister to take a decision of this sort before such a public discussion takes place. The whole weight of Press and broadcasting opinion is on the side of that proposition and the only body I found on the other side was not unnaturally, the I.T.A. The Minister must say definitely and firmly to the I.T.A. that he is not prepared to take a decision as to what should happen about the allocation of a possible fourth channel. He should then set up the inquiry that has to take place before 1976.
In view of his intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, I want to say something about the time-scale of this inquiry. The Minister is obsessed by the year 1976 which is the year in which any legal action will have to be taken. It is not the year in which an inquiry would start sitting. It is not the year in which an inquiry would have to report. It is not even the year in which the Minister would have to take a decision consequent on the report of that inquiry.
Therefore, if the Minister feels, as I hope he does, that there must be an inquiry between now and 1976, there is no reason why he could not announce the setting up of that inquiry in 1972. It could start deliberations, say, in the middle of next year and produce a report towards the end of 1973 or the beginning of 1974. We would want that inquiry to

look not only at the allocation of the fourth channel but at the whole structure of broadcasting, including commercial radio and consider whether there should be commercial or non-commercial radio, local or non-local radio. We would want all such matters to be considered by the inquiry.
On the unlikely assumption that the Government are still in office towards the end of 1974, or, if they are, that the Minister still occupies his present post, whoever is responsible for this decision then must, by the end of 1973 or the beginning of 1974, have in his hands a report based on long and detailed consideration. There is no reason why at that stage he could not announce his decisions in principle to take effect in 1976, when the charter runs out. He would not be pre-empting future decisions which must be taken. He would not be preventing the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. from going on with their activities or initiating such activities as they would wish to initiate after 1976.
The report having been prepared and put in the Minister's hands, it is not 1976, but the date at which he announces his decision on the report which matters. This is not a semantic argument, with respect to the Minister's P.P.S.; it is an argument of substance.
It would not be right for the Minister to take a decision on the allocation of the fourth channel or on local commercial radio until he had had the opportunity to look at the report of that independent body. There is no reason why the report should not be in his hands in approximately two and half years from now, or why the decision should not have been announced by then. If the decision is that the I.T.A. shall continue in its present form, I see no reason why the Television Act should not be amended to bring the date forward a year. If the decision was that the B.B.C. should continue with something very much approaching its present charter and structure, why should it have to wait until 1976 if everybody agrees that it should go on from the middle of 1974? It is not a question of freezing the position for five or six years every 10 or 12 years.
Inquiries of this sort should take place when decisions of this sort have to be made. If there are major decisions to be made in broadcasting, it might well be


worthwhile setting up a public inquiry. If no decisions have to be taken, I agree that there is no point in having an inquiry for the sake of it. There is no magic in the period of 10 to 12 years. There is no reason why the inquiry should not be designed to set the pattern of broad-casting, not for a decade, but for 15 years or even longer. If matters arise which call for a new inquiry, then let us have one. But I should be reluctant to see the Minister taking decisions now on the basis that he must wait until 1976 when this is patently not so.
If the Minister were to approach the matter in this way, he would be demonstrating his concern to secure a full and public discussion on broadcasting problems and he would be taking his decisions slowly and deliberately, as clearly he should, on this very important topic. Everybody agrees that that is what the Minister should do, and I hope that he will make an announcement to that effect this evening.

8.45 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I should like to add my very warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) upon giving us the opportunity for having this debate and upon the way in which he introduced the debate with what was an extremely thoughtful and interesting contribution. There had been on this side of the House a little anxiety about the health of some hon. Members opposite who have been indulging in marathon performances in the Standing Committee upstairs. We offer them our condolences. It has been a very welcome surprise to find how much extremely interesting material those hon. Members can pack into a very short time.
It is extremely valuable that we should have the opportunity to have this debate at this time. It gives me the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that the Government do not have a closed mind on the subject of the fourth television channel. There have been a few confident assertions, outside the House, that the issue is already settled one way or another. That is certainly not so. I have always made it plain to the House, and certainly to the Independent Television Authority, that while I see some strong arguments against allocating this fourth channel in

the years immediately ahead, the Government have not ruled it out. We have recently received this submission from the Authority, and that I shall be studying carefully.
I think it has been recognised throughout this debate that the discussion about the uses to which the fourth channel could be put has been conducted for quite a number of years. There have been references by hon. Members to the Pilkington Committee and the recommendation of the Pilkington Committee that with a structural change the fourth channel should be allocated to I.T.V. The Government at that time, while not authorising the I.T.A. to go ahead with the second channel, expressed the view that this might be right in a few years' time.
A number of hon. Members taking part in the debate—the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and others—have suggested that that Pilkington recommendation for structural change in the I.T.A. ought to take place. It was not the view of the Government of the time of the Pilkington Committee, or of the Opposition of the time of the Pilkington Committee, or, I think, of the last Government, and I know that it is a view which would be contested in many parts of the House. I welcome the fact that over these past months there has been renewed interest in the subject of the fourth channel and views of a wide variety have been put forward.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The Minister has indicated that the Independent Television Authority has made submissions to him. What consultations has he had with the British Broadcasting Corporation? Is he aware that the B.B.C. is making representations and submissions to him on this important topic?

Mr. Chataway: I was going to come in due course to the other representations made to me. I simply say that this debate in many shapes and forms has been going on for a very long time. Many of the alternatives which are advanced now are not new, but I very much welcome the fact that there has been, and still is, a wide-ranging debate about the uses to which the fourth channel might be put, and the decision which the Government have to make will certainly have


to take account of the many potential alternatives there might be.
Briefly, because I am very conscious of the fact that there are many hon. Members who want to take part in subsequent debates tonight, I would attempt to look at some of these alternatives which have been discussed by hon. Members this evening, and to enumerate some of the factors which, I believe, it is right one should take into account. The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) and the hon. Member for Derby, North spoke of education. It has been suggested on a number of occasions and in the Pilkington Committee that the fourth channel might be devoted to an educational service. There has always been a problem of financing. It has always been the case that the idea of a channel devoted exclusively to education would have to compete with other priorities in education.
There is a strong case—I think that it is well argued by the I.T.A.—for contending that the broad educational interest would not necessarily be best served by concentrating all educational programmes into one channel and that it is better that such programmes should be distributed across channels which are used for entertainment as well.

Mr. Whitehead: There is a strong probability that the I.T.A. will itself be concentrating educational programmes in the mornings only on the channel which it has in order to give additional time to the companies which want to put programmes on in the afternoon. How does the right hon. Gentleman view that prospect? Will he authorise it if it is proposed to him?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman has raised a separate matter on which one would hope to have an opportunity to comment at another time.
Apart from the points which I have just put, there are in the education world continuing doubts about the extent to which broadcast television can be expanded to make any substantial contribution to the curricula of all students. There are many who argue that the shortage of frequencies, even with another channel, must mean that broadcast television can touch the differing curricula of different students at different stages of development and with different aptitudes at only

a very few points, and such people would rather look to cassettes or closed-circuit systems as the growth points of the future. But these are primarily questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and I am, naturally, consulting her on the matter.
It has been suggested that the fourth channel should, perhaps, be devoted to parliamentary proceedings. Neither House has said that it wants to have its proceedings televised, and perhaps it is difficult anyway to envisage that it would be thought right to televise all or most of Parliamentary proceedings, or to devote the whole or most of a channel to that purpose. If, on the other hand, it were thought desirable to televise an edited version or to televise extracts from Parliament on special occasions, I should incline to the view that those programmes ought to find a place in the ordinary networks.
Third—several hon. Members have referred to these possibilities—there is the concept of allotting television time between different interest groups. In some quarters this has in recent months become a rather fashionable idea. There is considerable interest in the Dutch system, to which some hon. Members have referred. The idea of stimulating what I think is called participative radio and television has been campaigned for over the years by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). In his speech in 1968, which was widely reported, he argued that interest groups should be given access to the media, and I think that it is probably from the right hon. Gentleman that the recent interest has primarily stemmed.
Those interested in these ideas frequently allude to the system in the Netherlands, where political, religious and other communities have traditionally provided all or part of the broadcasting services on a transmitter-sharing basis, although successive post-war Acts of Parliament have obliged them to surrender increasing amounts of air time to a central public service broadcasting authority. The system has gradually become more fragmented and complex, with such minority groups as Moral Rearmament and the Society for Sexual Reform being allowed a few minutes weekly, while larger organisations, of


course, are allotted more time. I would not suggest that all these ideas ought to be dismissed out of hand.
In broadcasting, as in other fields, there is value in studying the experience and practice of other countries at a similar stage of development. I have looked with a great deal of interest at the Dutch system of broadcasting, but I am sometimes advised by Dutch friends not to overlook the fact that one by-product of the system has been that the pirate stations, Radio Veronica and Radio North Sea International, have attracted away the majority of the audience.
Our experience in this country of broadcasting by interest groups has been confined to party political broadcasts. Although I have appeared in a number of these over the years, I cannot conceal from myself that they are not widely regarded as being the jewels in the British broadcasting crown. Not everyone would see them as providing the springboard for a new leap forward in broadcasting. Many people have concluded that allotting time to political parties, religious groups and other interests would not necessarily produce the most rewarding broadcasting, but I shall continue to examine with care all the many suggestions of this sort which have been advanced.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not the Minister agree that it would be rather narrow to judge this purely from the Dutch experience and the comparison with the rather special case of party political broadcasts?

Mr. Chataway: I will certainly take account of the hon. Gentleman's view.
Other possibilities have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Openshaw talked of a public service regional broadcasting authority. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) spoke of the need for more regional broadcasting. As the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made clear, one of the potential advantages that the I.T.A. see in having more time is that it would mean that more time could be given to the regional companies. In considering the possibilty of using the fourth channel to provide much smaller companies which would serve relatively small areas, one has to have

regard to the cost and the method of financing. Although no doubt television need not be quite so expensive as it is at the moment, it is a comparatively expensive medium, and it will always be difficult to provide a broadcast television station for a small community.
The debate, both here and outside, has centred principally around the Authority's recommendation that the fourth television service should be used to provide a service complementary to I.T.V.1. The Authority has advanced a strong case and has argued it persuasively. Clearly there are many advantages in a service which is complementary rather than competitive.
I will not repeat the arguments that have been advanced by the Authority, but one must take account of what the Authority says about programme possibilities and of the fact, as one or two hon. Members have recognised, that in a regionally based system, such as I.T.V. is at the moment, there is bound to be considerable surplus capacity in the regions and, therefore, the possibility of providing a good service somewhat more economically than if the alternative service were started from scratch.
Doubts about the proposal of the Authority that the second channel should be organised to be complementary rather than competitive have been expressed from several quarters. In a characteristically thoughtful review of the television year in this morning's Financial Times, that much-respected critic Mr. T. C. Worsley, describing the I.T.A. proposals as sensible and workable, voices the doubt whether the Authority would be able to ensure that the two services were complementary and that I.T.V.2. would not degenerate into a ratings-catching copy of I.T.V.1.That is a crucially important consideration.
It is said by many, including the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court, that the past record of the I.T.A. does not offer any guarantee of their ability to control the companies. All of us can point to I.T.A.'s failures. I wonder whether enough allowance is made for the sudden economic reversals which falsified expectations in the early years of the present contract periods. I have considerable respect for the present membership of the Authority, and I take only


limited credit for it since most of the appointments were made by the last Administration. We should recognise that I.T.A.'s failures are often more apparent because the I.T.A. is separate from the broadcasting companies.
It is always possible to quote—as, for example, by the T.V.4 campaign—from the Authority's annual report which criticises the output of the companies and to use it as evidence against the Authority. When the Authority fails to get its policies implemented by the companies, it is more apparent than is the case with the B.B.C. because they are separate from the broadcasters and sometimes engaged in an open dialogue with them. Those who argue that supervision of the B.B.C. should be by a body divorced from the Corporation should particularly take account of the handicap in their public relations imposed by this situation on the independent authorities.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Criticism of the structure of the Authority in no way constitutes criticism of the personnel of the Authority.

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful for that intervention. I know that that would be the view of a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed I believe that the hon. Member for Derby, North said it expressedly.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is at least as important to encourage the many excellent people who work on the staff of the various companies, such as producers and people on that level, who are often not in a position to make the final decision, which is made for them by the commercial directors of the programme companies? We should not forget when we talk about good personnel the excellent work carried out by the producers and other people who work for the commercial companies. The Minister should arrange his future programmes in such a way that these people are encouraged to do their best work.

Mr. Chataway: I do not intend to embark on a long list of tributes, and any tribute I have paid in passing to the personnel of the Independent Television Authority is in no way exclusive. I

hold a high view of a large number of other people involved in broadcasting, and indeed in other walks of life.
Other criticisms of the Authority's concept of complementality have come from those who want competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) made it clear that he wanted to see genuine competition and would wish to see the fourth channel allocated to companies which would be in competition with existing companies. The advertising interests have equally made it clear that they do not favour the idea of the same companies being involved in the second channel because, from their point of view, they would wish to see competition.
The hon. Member for Putney in arguing that he wanted to see control diversified, less predictably was arguing that he would wish to see the fourth channel, as I understood it, allocated not only to programme makers separate from the present ones, but also to a body which would not be regulated by the I.T.A. because he wanted that amount of separateness. From that standpoint, obviously there is a case to be made in favour of competition. It is tempting to argue that it might be possible to get the benefits of complementary programming alongside the advantages of competition. This has been argued from a number of quarters over the years. But it must be recognised that, if one is saying that it will be difficult for the Authority, even with the safeguards that it is proposing in its favour, to ensure complementary programming under the structure that it recommends, it would be even more difficult to ensure complementary programming if the two services were being provided by competitive channels.
Then there is the issue of finance, to which the hon. Member for Putney referred. It is an important practical question whether there would be enough money to pay for a competitive commercial service. Obviously it would be considerably more expensive than the £15 million that the Authority estimates would be the cost of providing a second service along the lines proposed by it.
Incidentally, I did not find wholly persuasive the argument of the hon. and


learned Member for Barons Court on the financial question raised by the Authority. It seems to me to be possible to envisage that the companies would find a prospect of this kind attractive, although, as the I.T.A.'s submission notes, it would be two years or more before the companies were able to break even on a second channel provided on this basis.
Again, one must take account of the position of the Press and the likely impact on it of a fourth channel financed by advertising. A number of hon. Members have referred to this point. Certainly there will be differing views on whether it is any function of the Government permanently to check the development of broadcasting in order to protect existing Press interests. But I think that there is general agreement that, in discussing new developments, one should bear in mind their likely impact on other media of communications.
If one is anxious to produce a greater diversity of choice in broadcasting, one must be concerned also with the range of choice in the Press. There can be no doubt that independent televsion has had some effect on the Press. Equally, there can be no doubt that the extent to which the Press and television compete for the same advertising is often exaggerated. But some estimates suggest that perhaps 10 per cent. of independent television's present revenue might otherwise have been available to the Press.
Finally, there is the question of the timing. This was the last subject dealt with in the Authority's submission, and obviously it is an important one. Two questions will have to be decided. The first is whether to take any decision at the present time on the allocation of the fourth network. The second is to what purpose the channel should be allocated. If the answer to the first question turns out to be a decision not to allocate the fourth channel now, there is plenty of time for a continuing public debate about the eventual allocation.

Mr. Richard: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that there will have to be a general inquiry prior to 1976? If it does, will he comment on my points about the timing of that inquiry?

Mr. Chataway: I accept that, nearer to 1976, it will be right to look in a comprehensive way at the options which are open. But I do not think that it can be sensible for broadcasting to be in a state of more or less permanent inquiry. The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that, during the time that there is a public inquiry, the broadcasting authorities cannot initiate any changes. The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise, secondly, that as soon as a public inquiry is set up, a large part of the energies of those engaged on both sides in broadcasting is devoted to the public relations battle. Those involved in the last exercise make that absolutely clear.
I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is on to a good point when he suggests that we should break out of this 10-year or 12-year cycle by trying, at the end of the next review, to set a pattern for 15 or 20 years. We are entering a period in which there will be even more rapid change. We have to recognise that the review period has to be shorter. It would be quite ridiculous, in 1970, as was proposed last year, not even half way through the cycle, to set up an inquiry for post-1976. On that pattern, what would be happening would be that in 1976 we should usher in the new order, and in 1980 or 1981 we should be setting up the inquiry for the next round. The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that many of the most valuable innovations in the post-war period have come before inquiries, and to adopt this suggestion would be to impose a hopelessly narrow straitjacket on our system.

Mr. Whitehead: On this central point, surely the Minister realises that if there is to be a review before 1976, the inquiry should report two years before that, which means that it should be set up two years before that. If that means setting up an inquiry in 1972, surely the consideration of the allocation of the fourth channel is one thing for the inquiry. The Minister cannot decide it.

Mr. Chataway: If the hon. Gentleman says that the inquiry has to take two or three years, no doubt his arithmetic will lead him in that direction. I do not take that view.
I have taken note of a number of other points which have been raised.


The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Putney drew attention to the evidence produced by the A.C.C.T. I have been glad to receive that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brig-house and Spenborough raised the question of hours, and I took note of his views. As the House knows, the I.T.A. have put to me their proposals for decontrol of hours. A number of other hon. Members have drawn attention to the importance of spreading the existing services. In all of these, I recognise that there are points to which it is right that the Government's attention should be directed.
In conclusion, one promise I can make to the hon. Member for Derby, North and to other hon. Members who have raised the question is that, should we decide that the time has come to make an allocation of this fourth channel, I shall have discussions with any of the main groups who wish to represent their views to me before any final decision is taken.

Orders of the Day — AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In respect of the balloted debate which is now about to take place on the aerospace industry, I understand that there is a lighter item that has also been successful in the ballot, dealing with Concorde, but as both of these items appear under the same Vote I understand that it is possible for these two debates to merge together. My point is that, as the balloting for position and subject on the Consolidated Fund Bill is a fairly recent innovation and there appears not to be any established precedent, would it not be true to say that it would be unfortunate if the new procedure of balloting should be damaged by an abuse of running two debates together, albeit that they are in order, to the detriment of other hon. Members who have been successful at an earlier place in the ballot?

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Miss Harvie Anderson): I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He is perfectly correct in saying that the Chair could take no exception to the two sub-

jects being discussed together, if it were to the agreement of the House, as they both fall within the same Vote. But I would also say that it has been known that subjects falling in this way are taken together by agreement with the House. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. I see his point about the priorities resulting from the procedure of the ballot, but there could be other means—which it would not be proper for me to suggest—whereby hon. Members further down and coming within the same Vote could also so arrange things as to cancel their agreement to go at No. 6 and join in if it were appropriate, as in this case. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall see that it is brought to the notice of those concerned.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your Ruling you used what I consider to be key words—"with the agreement of the House". Does that mean that the running together of debates in what I regard as an abuse of the balloting procedure can be done only with the agreement of the House?
Further, would I be correct in assuming that if the balloting procedure is being brought into disrepute the best thing that hon. Members can do on future occasions is to indulge in a mad scramble and take their chance on catching the eye of the Chair in any debate, irrespective of the order of balloting? Or perhaps, better still, try to get in on the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House?
I appreciate your difficulty Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that there is no clear precedent for this, but surely it is a matter to be deprecated by the Chair when an abuse of a new procedure, that of balloting for position, is about to occur?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the words quoted by the hon. Gentleman, if he reads them in context, will be seen not to mean what he has represented them to mean. On his second point, I should not prejudge the hypothetical situation as he has described it.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not there another side to this issue, namely, that the order of debate is arranged not only for the


convenience of the House, but to enable the appropriate Minister to be present to reply to the debate at the appropriate time? If these things get out of predicted sequence, it may mean that the House will not have the appropriate Minister present to reply to the debate. This matter is of some substance to the House as a whole from the point of view of having a Minister present to listen to the debate at a time when he can reasonably expect the debate to take place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may or not be so, but it is not a matter for the Chairman.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject we are about to debate, being the greater, subsumes the lesser subject in a lower place in the debating order. Nothing can prevent hon. Members who catch the eye of the Chair from speaking about Concorde, and it would be silly if there were to be two debate on the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That certainly is not a matter for the Chair.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate a matter of great concern to the country from the point of view of those who are interested in Britain's having a stake in the aerospace industry in the future—the manufacturers, the sub-contractors and, of course, most important, the thousands of employees who have a future in the industry.
During the last year my Front Bench colleagues and I have been probing deeply and, I think, responsibly to try to elicit more information from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about his policies. I say from personal experience—and I underline the word personal—that no one can accuse the right hon. Gentleman of the kind of behaviour with regard to Questions recently associated with his colleagues, because my colleagues have tabled dozens of Questions of a helpful and, I think, friendly nature in order to give the Minister a chance to explain and enlighten the House about what he thinks of this vital industry.
In some instances we have been brushed aside with a kind of contemptable brevity amounting almost to a breach of Privilege. Tonight we have the chance—and there are many hours before us—to consider this subject in detail. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite should laugh. They will recall the Rolls-Royce debate, when the Bill went through the House at four o'clock in the morning. That was important then and this subject is important now.
On the other hand, I speak from the back benches tonight because this is not a major debate, but it is a debate on which we might have taken a whole day. I am not here to make party points, but merely to do some technical probing to help the Minister assure the country that the Government have been thinking about this matter and that some activity is going ahead behind the scenes which will blossom into fully blown and justifiable policies with which to satisfy the country. At this time of the year, with about 25,000 employees having been dismissed from the aircraft industry in the last 12 months, many people are anxious about the future. This uncertainty is doing a great deal of harm to the country.
The Government should not be short of ideas. They must be aware that we have gone from the Brabazon Report to the Plowden Report to the Edwards Report and the Elstub Report, and I understand that there is now a Marshall Report behind the scenes—presumably marshalling the facts for the future. One would have enough to cover a 2,000-yard runway with the helpful evidence which these reports have given. There has been no shortage of ideas on the policies which might be pursued.
No one would expect the Minister, in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, to put forward elaborate policies which are vital to the industry, so this is an occasion for considering the current situation of an industry which until recently has been employing 212,000 people, apart from the subcontractors, who must number many more.
We believe that, given the right philosophy and the willingness to accept that Britain needs and can have a stake in the aerospace industry of the future, provided that the Government take the


initiative and are prepared to get involved in the activities necessary to ensure this, there is no reason why we should not have a much better future than we have had in the last year or two.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has an unrivalled opportunity, with his immense responsibilities, to look at the scene in a comprehensive way. He has overall responsibility for the air corporations, the British Airports Authority, the licensing of civil aviation, the many aspects of the Civil Aviation Bill 1971, the aerospace requirements formerly exercised by the Minister of Technology, research and development, procurement of aircraft and equipment, space projects, missiles, support for the civil airports, sponsorship, and decisions on launching aid and operational research programmes. We also now have the help of the Dainton Report and the Rothschild comments on it. Other aspects are in doubt and should be pronounced upon.
Clearly, we cannot cover all this vast network of activity in this debate, but the House seeks a convincing assurance that the Government are aware of the vital importance of this industry and the problems which beset it at present and that they are anxious to take action to ensure its future viability and reassure the many thousands of people whose lives have been bound up in it for many years.
The areas which I want to probe include the widespread anxieties about the employment prospects of 250,000 workers who are employed in aerospace and in the sub-contractors, a brief reference to the future of Concord—only brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) will be seeking to probe the cost aspect later in tonight's debate—and the Government's policy on launching aid and on subsonic and space projects. Here again the Government have been helped by the Select Committee's Report, which alone would deserve a long debate.
Certainly V/STOL and other systems have a part to play in the future development of the industry. I will not ask about the Government's thinking on airships. That may be expecting too much at this time, but they should bear that matter in mind.
I am concerned about the HS748, to which I shall refer briefly later. The

Government ought to give the House an indication on their thinking about their rôle in the E.E.C. if and when we enter the Community. There is grave anxiety that the Government will not show the initiative which may be expected of them. These are some of the points on which I want to touch this evening.
Most people appreciate that, although we could buy and procure aircraft from other sources—the United States, Europe, and elsewhere—where aircraft can be produced with greater ease and have a greater assurance of guaranteed markets, nevertheless, the skill, experience and knowhow of workers and management are such that we can make a unique contribution to world aviation, given the will. This is what we are concerned about tonight and for the future.
Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. was a commendable but, in some ways, last-minute jettisoning of the Government's political philosophy of everybody standing on their own feet. No one could imagine a more disastrous philosophy being applied to the aircraft industry which in many countries depends upon Government money, research, and other facilities. This has concerned us in the last year. When we realise how interdependent we are on various countries, it is more than ever essential that we have a firm idea of where we want to go.
To illustrate how we can lose control of our industry, I need hardly remind the House of Rolls-Royce, which was in trouble with the RB211, which affected Lockheed and the TriStar. After much debate here and in the United States the United States Government agreed to support Lockheed, and that saved the day. We are grateful for the work which the Government did to ensure this agreement. My hon. Friends and I were in some difficulty in trying to get assurances about the steps which were taken, because we did not wish to say anything which might affect the negotiations. However, the Minister was forthcoming on the matter.
When I was in Brussels in May I met a member of the United States Senate. I asked for his view about the link-up between Rolls-Royce and Lockheed. He said that he was opposed to Congress giving support to Lockheed; if private finance houses in the States would not support the venture, that did not justify


Congress using the nation's money for that purpose. Therefore, I knew that he was against it.
When I met him abroad recently, knowing that the vote was carried by 49 to 48 that the United States would clinch the deal by giving support through Congress, I asked him how he voted. He said that he did not go to the meeting on that occasion because he had to attend a family wedding. So we have the prospect that thousands of jobs at Derby and in other parts of the country which were bound up with the future of the RB211, TriStar, our aircraft industry and the viability of the United States industry, depends on some bride getting married in one of the States of America. It may be that that woman has unknowingly done as much as the British and American Governments to save the industry.
I mention this because it shows that we are not always in control of affairs, even if we know where we want to go. When I was speaking in Parliament House in Ottowa recently, I suggested that on these grounds some Members of this House should sit in the United States Congress and the other way round, because our interests are intertwined. Undoubtedly this will apply if and when we join the European Economic Community.
We have seen not only the problems of Rolls-Royce but also the demise of Handley Page, the troubles with th Beagle Aircraft Company, and now the Britten Norman problems, with the receiver appointed and the struggle which is going on to try and keep the firm going. In the last year about 3,000 redundancies have been declared in B.A.C. There are the impending closures and difficulties with Westland Helicopters and Teddington Controls, and many sub-contractors are threatened by this situation.
These casualties are probably not the responsibility of any party or Government, but we can expect them in the situation of an aircraft industry such as this facing the difficulties which are being faced, not only in Britain, but also elsewhere in the world. We know the viability position of the United States airlines. Pan Am and T.W.A. are also threatened. All these are factors to be taken into account.
I come now to the unemployment situation. I believe that in the last year there have been about 25,000 jobs fewer in the aircraft industry than there were in 1970. These are problems to be reckoned with. They will grow unless we can give far better guarantees about the future and security of the industry.
Only this evening I have been meeting a deputation of workers from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Technical and Supervisory Section) from Woodford in Cheshire. They have put the case for the HS748 as a Royal Air Force pilot trainer replacement and for the maintenance of employment in that area especially as it affects designers.
The delegation, on behalf of members and employees of HS Aviation Manchester, say that they are opposed to the
Government's intention to purchase as replacement to the Vickers Varsity pilot trainer the 'Jetstream'.
They claim that
no Government can, whilst the high rate of unemployment continues
go ahead with the purchase of an aircraft which is allegedly made with some foreign components and whilst there are other alternatives available in Britain, and they demand the obvious choice for the replacement, being the HS748.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: My understanding is that, if the Jetstream were to be produced for the Royal Air Force, it would first be produced at Prestwick, which would be of great benefit to that area with its problems. Further, if a substantial order were to be forthcoming, there is good reason to believe that Rolls-Royce might even produce the engines in this country as well. I think that we should accept that, whichever of these projects is taken on for the Royal Air Force, so long as it is a British one and not that rotten American one, we shall be on the right track.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to pursue this important point. I understand the feeling of the workers in that part of the country and of workers elsewhere, when work is in short supply, that they should retain what work they can in their areas. This causes problems amongst hon. Members who are rightly fighting for the interests of their own constituents.
The hon. Gentleman, with his background knowledge and experience in aviation matters, will recognise that when design teams are split up and dispersed it is a serious matter. It takes a long time to get such teams together again and to have them working as a co-ordinated, cohesive team. What happens to the design team now shows what may happen to the manual workers in the company in two years' time. These are the pointers which cause concern about lack of security.

Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much design work there is in the 748?

Mr. Bishop: Undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman knows as much about that as I do. Those who have made representations to hon. Members on the Jetstream have alleged that the engines are made in France, the tail unit in Canada and the propeller and other significant items of equipment in the United States. We can argue that the work should stay in Manchester, and the people there are rightly concerned about the future. We can also argue about the need for work in Scotland, where the alternative is being made. My point is that because of the shortage of work and the fewer alternatives when the major projects like Concorde, Rolls- Royce projects and others are completed, there is understandably a kind of dog fight between people wanting to keep what work they can, even though those who look at the national picture may decide that there should be different priorities. If we had more work there would be greater fluidity of contracts and projects and better prospects for all concerned.
This is not a constituency interest for me, although I am concerned as one who has been in the industry on design for 25 years. Hon. Members who are locally involved include my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), Manchester, Blakley (Mr. Rose), Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach), Salford, West (Mr. Orme), Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). They have all expressed their concern.

We cannot dismiss the problems easily. The Minister will undoubtedly receive further representations. It would be helpful if he would make some comment on the prospects tonight, having regard to the considerations mentioned by his hon. Friends of the need for work in other places as well.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Does my hon. Friend agree that the very survival of Hawker-Siddeley is at stake? [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I have talked to the people concerned many times. At least one hon. Member opposite and a number of other hon. Members are aware that Hawker-Siddeley could be in jeopardy unless a flow of work is guaranteed, not just for the design teams but for the production workers. There is a possibility of the 748's being used not only for military but for commercial purposes, which could make it a very viable prospect. Therefore, what we are talking about is the survival of a British firm and not sub-contracting to all sorts of foreign interests.

Mr. Bishop: The situation is the result of the shortage of work. People naturally try to secure their own future in their own area, possibly at the expense of others. That is natural. The Minister has received the representations of my hon. Friends, who have been lobbied and have been working with the deputations. He will possibly be able to say something to get rid of their fears.
It is well known that when we discuss aircraft we are also discussing subcontractors. The Rolls-Royce affair was an example of many subcontractors being affected. In my constituency I have had the problems of Ransome, Hoffman and Pollard, the ball-bearing firm, over the Rolls-Royce situation, and it is concerned about the future of the aircraft industry and other industries. Some firms face severe competition from the Japanese, especially in ballbearings. Firms making sophisticated specialised bearings and components for the aerospace industry do not always have the opportunity to offset some of their high research and development costs by large ranges of standard bearings, which are now being produced by the Japanese.
It is very short sighted if British firms buy Japanese bearings, because it is undermining the viable industry of this


country and the effect upon their employees in the long term could be disastrous. In view of the uncertainty of our industry, the Japanese threat is very real. In 1967, our imports from Japan were £800,000 but now are running at about £4 million a year. This figure gives cause for concern. Many people have made representations, including the Federation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, through its Technical and Supervisory Section. I understand that Mr. George Doughty, its General Secretary, made representations to the Minister in November, when he produced a paper expressing his concern and that of his colleagues about the future of the industry. There have also been expressions of concern by the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, and by the Air League Council, of which I am a member, as is the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
The Air League Council produced a paper for consideration and on 6th December I asked the Minister what representations had been made by the Air League and what he had replied. His only answer was:
I have received the Air League's pamphlet entitled 'The United Kingdom Aerospace Industry' published in October of this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 204.]
He did not take the opportunity to say that he had studied the pamphlet and had certain observations to make on it. This debate gives him the chance to rectify that omission.
I wonder sometimes whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is not only a problem of the waste of precious skills which these workers have at various levels, and which may have cost the country about £10,000 in training, but also that the intensive specialisation of such people means that, when there is redundancy and short time, they do not easily find alternative work. We do not want here the situation in the United States, which I recently visited, where Ph.D.s are driving cabs and doing other manual jobs. It is not only bad for the country but frustrating to those who have done so much to qualify for some of these specialised posts and whose skills we should be using in the interests of the country as a whole and not wholly for

the satisfaction of the individuals concerned.
I believe that the future of our aerospace industry is in doubt with so many people because one cannot easily fill the vacuum when the present projects are phased out. One could mention the various projects carried out by different firms. One can foresee the time when they will come to a stop and one wonders what will take their place. I shall not refer to Concorde at great length, as it is the subject of a debate later. We are still waiting for many options to be turned into firm orders. There have been encouraging responses in the last week or two from B.O.A.C., at least about its critical appraisal of Concorde's commercial prospects, but, of course, the air lines themselves cannot work and plan in a vacuum, and the prospects of the air lines in the United States are not too good.
One notes with satisfaction that, following the visit of the Concorde to the United States, President Nixon seems anxious to replace the vacuum created there by the cancellation of the S.S.T. While the interest aroused by Concorde will help us, it may, of course, encourage competition at a greater pace from the United States itself. After Concorde and after the RB211 and following the abandonment of the BACIII, there is only the Hawker-Siddeley involvement in the European air bus. The other projects in view are minor by comparison.
We ought to have some indication of Government policy over VTOL. The Government should say what is going on behind the scenes, if anything. We must look not only at aerospace manufacture and procurement, but at airline policy, airports development and the other changes that have taken place, bearing in mind that it is now possible to travel by rail from such places as Manchester to London even quicker and cheaper than by air, having regard to the amount of time spent getting to and from airports and the possibility that flights may be cancelled or diverted due to bad weather and other conditions.
We must look at the ultimate objectives of VTOL and STOL. They will be coming into operation in the 1980s and we must consult with local authorities on both sides of the Channel and think about updating safety regulations.


Britain leads the world in this area, the Harrier being a fine example, looked on with envy by other countries. What sense is there in allowing Pratt and Whitney access to the technical know how of the Pegasus engines which power this aircraft?
Britain should be thinking about future planning. Looking at the industry as a whole we can see the need for public support to a great degree. There is hardly a country in the world which is not supporting its aircraft industry in some way or other. In 1970 the Government spent £335 million in the industry—£.247 million on defence projects and £88 million on civil projects, including Concorde. That is a subsidy per employee of £1,462 a year. Taking the nearest industrial classification, including vehicles, this gives an average wage for the industry in 1969 of £1,493 per employee, which means that the amount of subsidy per employee is about what he gets in wages. One wonders about the accountability for this money. Nowadays some employees are getting a subsidy direct from the Government when they are unemployed, although they collect a much lesser sum from the labour exchange.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: My hon. Friend is making the valid point that the industry needs a good deal of Government support. Is it not reasonable that the Government should insist that management policy is good and avoids labour disputes as much as possible? I have in mind particularly the situation in Bristol, where for a number of weeks we have had employees on strike. Many of us feel that the management is not entirely blameless. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Bishop: That is a good point. There is general acceptance now, following the Rolls-Royce nationalisation, that the Government must be responsible for central planning and the main policies affecting the industry. In that event, the Government have the right to look at the policies for which firms are receiving money and ensure that it is being well spent. One often wonders why there are so few industrial troubles. Although I appreciate that the subsidy is given to those actively working in the industry, I am not so keen on the scheme whereby once a worker becomes unemployed a

subsidy is paid direct by the labour exchange. While I welcome the possibility of receiving the dole by post, what our workers want is work, and it is our job to make sure they get it. Not only the dignity of the worker but the well-being of the country and the industry is affected.
I began by saying that what I wanted was a technical debate on policy matters in which the Government were forthcoming about their thinking, but the belief that there is a need for public accountability and central planning is not restricted to people of my political persuasion. The Sunday Telegraph on 6th June last urged:
What is needed is a comprehensive British aerospace policy assured of continued British effort in those market sectors which have proved successful so far.
I agree with that.
My final point concerns a most important matter, namely, the situation if and when we enter the Common Market. A few months ago I made a visit to the Community lasting several days to find out the situation, in particular, concerning science and technology. Although I take the view that we should be careful about entering the Common Market, I do not advocate a dog-in-the-manger attitude, because if we enter the Common Market, the Community and Europe generally will look to us for a lead and to take the initiative in this matter. The Government's policies have been defined by their attitude to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, their comments about "lame dogs", and their policy of disengagement and of not getting involved with industries in trouble. This is not the philosophy for the Government to adopt if we enter the Common Market.
I have been looking at some of the five volumes of the Report of the Commission of the European Communities' studies on the aeronautical and space industries of the Community compared with those of the United Kingdom and the United States. The conclusions make comparisons about the rate of investment and the percentage of gross national product spent on those industries in Britain and in the rest of Europe. If the Government are anxious to ensure that we have a British aircraft industry and that we have close liaison with Europe, they must adopt a much different philosophy. They must be prepared to get involved


in these matters and to be prepared for engagement instead of disengagement. They may have to put a lot of money and facilities into the industry if Europe is to be given the lead and initiative which it expects from this country.
I appreciate the opportunity which I have been given of initiating this debate. I hope that the Minister will be encouraged by my comments and by those of others not necessarily to tell us about major policy decisions, but to show that they are thinking about these issues. I hope that they will say that they expect to receive the report of the Marshall Committee in the near future. The workers and management in the industry look to the Government to lay down the guidelines and to show that they are concerned about this important matter.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Walhamstow, East): I welcome the opportunity to speak and I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) on choosing this subject for debate. I think that this is the first time that we have had a debate simply on the aerospace industry since I became a Member of the House nearly three years ago, and I think it is high time we discussed the likely future policy of the industry and the Government's attitude to it.
The aerospace industry is today perhaps more introspective than it has been for many years. It is reaching the point at which it is not sure which direction it should take. Therefore, bearing in mind that there is to be a study carried out by Mr. Marshall for the Cabinet, it is reasonable for us, by our contributions, tonight to help him to decide what that policy should be.
At this moment of time there is no British national civil aircraft project in hand or envisaged in the industry. Nor is there a new military project except the Bulldog and the Hawker Siddeley 1182 trainer aircraft, both quite small-scale projects. I would not, of course, suggest that the men in the industry have not a very considerable amount of work to do; we all know about Concorde, the A300B, the Jaguar, the multi-rôle combat aircraft, and the Anglo-French helicopter project. However, the fact is that in simple national terms we do not

have a project of our own, and, therefore, we do not have a project with which to exercise the minds of our design teams or of our engineers and draftsmen. It is a cause for some concern, because without such a project we are likely to fall out of the state of the art and to find ourselves no longer able to have a viable aircraft industry.
At the same time, having said that, one has to admit that the industry finds it extremely difficult to identify a new commercial requirement or indeed to decide what its military design requirements should be, and I think that this is a question which the Government must bear in mind, because, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark said, the aircraft industry does require a measure of Government support, quite unlike any other industry in this country. In support of this contention I would argue that this industry has been a valuable export earner in the past and that it continues to be so, and that the need for Government support was recognised by Sir Ronald Edwards in his report in which he said—I shall paraphrase—that the Government of the day should give substantial support to the production of civil aircraft because of the advantages in the employment of national design and engineering skills in the industry, because of the defence need to maintain a viable manufacturing industry, and because of the gains to industry overall from the stimulus and dissemination of advanced technology applied in aircraft manufacture. These are just three of the reasons which Sir Ronald advanced. Each of them is an extremely powerful argument, and I shall try to exploit each of those reasons in what I have to say.
The question of what sized labour force should be in the industry and of how many companies should make up the industry is much more difficult to decide. The industry was 150,000 strong in 1950; it is now 212,000 strong; but between those two points there was a peak of 284,000 in 1960. So no political party can claim that it was more or less sympathetic to the industry. I do not think any one of us would want to say that there is a correct figure for the number of men who must be employed at all times in the industry, any more than anyone would wish to say there must be a certain number of airframe manufacturers


or of aero-engine manufacturers or of avionic companies. That decision should to some extent resolve itself by the market and by the requirements for aircraft in this country.
I come to a point which is undoubtedly exercising the industry at the moment—where it should be going and in what it should be involved and the part the Government should play in its activities. I think myself that we have got to look at those questions in both a short and a long-term way. I want to take the short-term issue first, and that is this question of the likelihood of increasing unemployment in the industry.
The hon. Member for Newark made the plea that, because of the likelihood of unemployment, the Hawker Siddeley 748 should be given special preference over another aircraft which is in competition for the same defence training requirement. I do not think that that argument stands up, at least not in that particular case, because I do not think that the two aircraft are really comparable. What is more, the Hawker Siddeley 748 has been around for a number of years. Only this week, I received a Press notice from Hawker Siddeley telling me that it had picked up another two orders from Siam. So I suspect that the Hawker Siddeley 748 can stand on its own two wheels—if not on its own two feet—and we do not have to make special pleading for it to be taken up by the Royal Air Force. But, equally, whichever aircraft is chosen, I hope that it is chosen because it is the best for the job it is called upon to do. In all honesty, I should not wish to choose between unemployment in Manchester and unemployment in Scotland, and I cannot believe that it is a choice for us in this House to make. The question is crucial in both cases.
What we should consider is whether there are other aircraft projects peculiarly British, uniquely British, which require special sympathy from the Government. If I point to two Hawker Siddeley aircraft, I do so because both are exceptional. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Harrier. It is a unique aircraft. We are all very proud that it is British. It is the first vertical take-off strike aircraft in squadron service in the world, and it represents a remarkable achievement.
The Harrier is in R.A.F. service, and we know, because the United States Marines have ordered it, that there is a very real chance that not only shall we have a further marine order for it but that the United States navy also will want to buy it. If the Americans want to buy—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows this—they will require it with an uprated Pegasus engine.
At this moment, as I understand it—I hope that I am wrong—Her Majesty's Government are providing funding only for the uprated Pegasus engine, the Pegasus 15, to the extent of one ground demonstration engine, that is, an engine purely for the test bench, but not one for in-flight testing. If the Pegasus 15 is to be developed for the United States navy, the money for that development, I understand, will come from the Americans, who will inevitably take over both the engine and the airframe, since the airframe will have to be altered to allow the larger engine to be fitted.
It is conceivable—I put it no higher —that we could reach a stage at which the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force found that it had a requirement for the uprated Harrier with the Pegasus 15 engine, yet, that if they wanted that aircraft although it was designed here by British skills and abilities they would have to go to the Americans and say, "Please can we ave our aeroplane back? We will buy it from you".
For my part—I cannot believe that my hon. Friends would not feel the same—I could not bear to think that such a situation could arise, especially as we know that the Royal Navy is considering the use of Harrier from various ships, perhaps even what we may describe one day from Harrier carriers.
As such a possibility faces us, the possibility of losing control of this engine and the aircraft, I appeal to the Minister to say that the Government will not let it happen, that they will find sufficient funding to ensure that the aircraft remains British, and that, even if they consider the sum of money so great that they cannot do it on their own, they will enter into a joint scheme with the American Government so that the engine and the aircraft are developed on an Anglo-American basis. I believe that this is crucial to the future of a great military


aircraft, crucial to our aircraft industry and crucial to our pride in that industry.
By the same token—and again I refer to another Hawker Siddeley military aircraft—I understand from the Sunday Telegraph that the R.A.F. has not a sufficient number of Nimrod aircraft to be able to fulfil the rôle of maritime reconnaissance for which it originally ordered the aircraft.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend goes on to Nimrod, I hope he will make it clear that by an Anglo-American venture on the uprated Pegasus and Harrier he means that the Americans share the cost for all the work to be done in this country, rather than us sharing the cost and the work being done in America.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a point which I wished to make, and I am glad that he has clarified it.
Nimrod, like Harrier, is an exceptional aircraft. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world, and no one has dared to suggest that it cannot more than fulfil the task for which it was designed. As I have said, the R.A.F. wants more Nimrod aircraft. Hawker Siddeley wants to keep the production line open and to keep at work the skilled men who have helped to create that aeroplane. If the R.A.F. wants it, and if we need employment in our aircraft factories, which we clearly do, then again why do not we order some more and allow the R.A.F. to do the job for which it originally ordered the 38 aircraft which it at present possesses?
I also understand there is a possibility that if the Nimrod line can remain open a little longer overseas orders may come forward. We should then get a double bonus and we should not have ordered the aeroplane simply to keep people at work but because it was genuinely required.
I have talked about these two military aircraft, both of which are made by Hawker Siddeley not because I am not equally sympathetic to the British Aircraft Corporation, but because, fortunately, B.A.C. has a reasonable military programme on its hands. We know that it has a heavy commitment in the Jaguar

programme and also the multi-rôle combat aircraft. I am therefore glad to think that B.A.C. does not have the pressing worries that are with Hawker Siddeley.
I should perhaps explain that there is a Hawker Siddeley factory in my constituency, but it does not manufacture aeroplanes. However, Hawker Siddeley has proved itself to be one of the most commercially successful British aircraft manufacturers since the war. The company possibly feels that Government money has gone to companies—one cannot but think of Rolls-Royce—who are in dire straits but otherwise have little merit, rather than to a company which has shown itself prepared to stand out in the aircraft industry and make its own way. That is one more reason why we should consider Harrier and Nimrod as two special cases.
I want to turn to civil aircraft projects. First, I congratulate the Government on the support they have now given to Concorde. This has been badly needed for some time. Hon. Members may have felt, as I have, that we have been spending the money but not getting enough credit for what we were doing. I also hope that B.A.C. and Aerospatiale will now reap a rich harvest of orders. They have produced an outstanding aeroplane, a world-beater, and they deserve full credit for doing that.
However, if we now say that we have spent £500 million of British taxpayers' money, thank goodness that is all over, let us forget it, then we shall have wasted our money. We have started on a generation of aircraft, and if we do not reap the rich corn we have sown in terms of a family of supersonic aircraft of varying sizes, then the investment of the British taxpayer will not have been well made.
This point was recently made to me by a senior airline executive, who said, "We must not think of the Concorde as a one-off aircraft. It is the beginning of something that can last for a decade, or indeed two or three decades." We have a lead which we know is envied by the American aircraft industry and which President Nixon has said he envies. Let us see that the lead which we now possess is exploited to give the British and French aircraft industry the full benefit of their courage and technical skill.
I was delighted to see in the Sunday Times this week a statement by some of those involved in making the aircraft that they too believed we should go for a family of aeroplanes—in other words, that we should capitalise on Concorde and the know-how we have built up.
As I have said, Concorde, before it goes into service, will probably cost the British taxpayer £500 million. Against that, the £150 million we shall spend on the RB211 does not seem a very large sum of money. But those two projects have taken, and are taking, what one might describe as a disproportionate share of the Government money available to the aircraft industry.
I have welcomed Concorde's success. I am equally glad to hear that the RB211 now seems to have got over its main problems and Rolls-Royce is optimistic that it will reach its specified performance in terms of the 1011. It is an advanced technology engine of considerable merit, but perhaps in this day and age its single greatest merit is that it belongs to that new concept of engines, the noiseless ones. I believe it is something on which we can capitalise. I was recently in Burbank and, although I think the 1011 will be a great seller for Lockheed, I am more interested that the 211 engine should sell not only in one aircraft type, but in a number of aircraft types.
I want Rolls-Royce engines to sell to whoever wants to buy them. With that engine they have an opportunity of breaking into other aircraft projects which are at present on the designer's drawing board and which I hope one day will fly. In terms of our own industry we should concern ourselves as to whether we can use that engine in some aircraft type which at present is possibly only a gleam in a draughtsman's eye.
It has been suggested that the present air-buses may be a little on the large side for some of the short-haul routes in Europe. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should be turning our thoughts towards an airliner based on the wide-bodied concept but smaller than the projected air-buses and based perhaps on a fuselage which may already be in existence and capable of taking the 211 engine—an aircraft which might have the signal benefit of short-take off and landing and which, with that engine, would

have the quietness which has been so long sought and which would be of such benefit to all those who live anywhere near an airport.
This would be a project into which our industry could get its teeth; it would be a civil aviation project on which our designers and engineers could busy themselves even if its cost was so great that we had to collaborate with the Europeans. However, I do not think anybody would argue against collaboration on a major project of this kind. Such an aircraft type would have a wide market, and therefore I commend it to my hon. Friend.
One of my last points relates to this question of collaborative projects. Clearly, we are always up against how much we can spend. As well as that, we are up against what risk we can expect aerospace companies or even aero engine companies to take when they are involved in one of these great new projects. We saw what happened to Rolls-Royce. In that case, there was bad management, and mistakes were made. But the size of the project proved more than even that great company could cope with.
I accept that probably collaboration is inevitable. But collaboration must not be of the sort which turns our once proud aerospace industry into a mere sub-contracting industry for Western Europe. If we do that, we shall have achieved nothing. We shall have lost the skills, we shall have driven away those people who make up our design teams. We have to sow the seed corn in the directions where we think aviation will go.
We have had a reference to vertical take-off. At the moment, no one can define the commercial requirement. But everyone feels that it is bound to come and that it is the future shape of aeroplanes. If it is, we should have some sort of test aircraft on which to learn the lessons of operating commercial vertical take-off aircraft successfully. I believe that we should be spending Government money in developing such a test aircraft with one of our two aerospace companies or perhaps in a collaborative programme with both, possibly with the Europeans as well. But until we learn the lessons which have to be learned, until we have studied the technology, we shall not be in a position to know whether


this is a viable project to follow Or whether it is a non-runner.
There are many other projects that we could be discussing. Anyone who had the privilege of listening last week to Sir Barnes Wallis, that 85-year old grand old man of the aircraft industry, will say that in this country we have men whose brains are second to none. His descriptions of hypersonic aircraft did not seem to be flights of fancy. Rather, they seemed to be flights of reality. Therefore, the knowledge is there. It is untapped. It deserves to be tapped, and the Government must assist in that.
I argue for the Government to support those present-day projects which deserve support because they are there, because they are proven and because they are wanted. I have referred already to the Harrier and the Nimrod. I want the Government to give the industry the feeling that it has the Government

behind it, that the Government want it to remain in existence, and that the Government appreciate its value in terms of being at a new frontier of technology all the time and not simply in commercial terms because of its export earnings for the nation year after year.
What is needed is a clear-cut statement of the Government's intention to maintain the aircraft industry's existence and to help it with those projects which it and the Government jointly believe are worth assistance. What the Government may put into those projects will not be a subsidy. It will be an investment for the future on which we should get a handsome return. If the Government view those projects in that light, I believe that we can have an aerospace industry which, even if it is smaller than it is at present, will be so much stronger, so much more viable and so much more optimistic in its attitude to the aircraft markets of the world that we shall regain many of those markets that we have lost in the past.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I take as my starting point the premise that in the area of Government intervention the aircraft industry provides a unique opportunity for Government finance to be directed not only to provide jobs, but also to provide an investment that will lead to an earning of foreign exchange and a valuable element of import substitution. From the point of view of employment, it could be perhaps even more certain in its return than fiscal or monetary measures to stimulate employment. That said, I regret somewhat that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is not present with my hon. Friend, because the two areas of military and civil aviation overlap so very closely and so much of what I have to say refers to the military side but nonetheless has industrial and employment implications, that I wish that he were here.
From the point of view of the Royal Air Force, there are a number of projects of which there are far too few examples as yet in service and which, if accelerated, could provide employment in the factories. The two classic examples to which my hon. Friend has already referred are Nimrod and Harrier. He is absolutely right about Nimrod from the military point of view. There is no doubt that with the ever-increasing Soviet presence around our oceans the 38 or so Nimrods in service are inadequate to cover the vast areas of ocean. If a further order were placed it would be a valuable basis for any subsequent export order. I must emphasise that.
I believe there are a mere four squadrons of Harrier in Royal Air Force service alone. That is a very inadequate provision when one considers that a large number of these aircraft will be deployed forward in Europe, where they will be extremely vulnerable to a first strike, which is something for which N.A.T.O., as a defensive alliance, must prepare. They will be extremely vulnerable also because we do not have heavy-lift helicopter capacity, and therefore their operating platforms and sites are more likely to be detected and pre-empted by a first strike. The Royal Air Force will need Harriers, and we shall certainly need to get Harriers to sea.
It is an almost criminal folly, an act of political blindness which will have very grave military implications if not rectified, that we have not yet put Harrier to sea. We have not even had a report to the House of the results of the trials which took place upon "Ark Royal" earlier in the summer. From a visit to her in September, I know that they were outstandingly successful. One can only surmise that the reason why a report has not been made to the House is that it would highlight the folly of the political decision taken by the last Administration that there should be no more fixed-wing air power for the Royal Navy.
It is a purely academic and semantic exercise to say that helicopters are appropriate for the Navy but that fixed-wing aircraft are not. We know that fixed-wing aircraft can operate in a V/STOL mode and push air down a little hotter and harder than helicopters. But the effect is the same. It is a pedantry to differentiate between them, and it must be rectified. If the Royal Navy could get a Harrier to sea with an uprated Pegasus engine, the export possibilities of the Harrier would not be limited to the United States Navy, for which about 200 aircraft would be ordered, but the Italian and other navies would follow suit. This matter must be put right because of the great gap in surface-to surface weaponry in the Royal Navy, for which only air power can compensate.
There will, however, also be a need for the development of surface-to-surface guided weapons of a longer range than the Anglo-French Exocet, which is substantially outranged by Soviet missiles. This is an area of work which the Government could put to industry for the benefit of our armed Services, and which would create jobs.
I understand that the Jaguar is going along well, and we should be proud of the progress to date with this Anglo-French project, but I suspect that in order to sell in overseas markets—we cannot rely on just 400 for the British and French air forces—it will require an up-rating of the Adour and thus a better self-defence capability than it possesses now. It is an outstanding aeroplane, with good short take-off and landing characteristics, good payload range potentialities


and a very sophisticated navigational and attack system. It is probably second to none in the front line. If there were this uprating, it would make it an even better seller in export markets than it is now.
The Government must throughout continue to emphasise that the M.R.C.A. project is probably more central to the future of our aerospace industry even than Concorde. It will involve more jobs and, from a technical point of view, many of the systems and many of the design features are even more advanced. The great thing with this project is that it is the forerunner of a whole progeny of new variable geometry aircraft which could ensue. A whole range of tactical strike, reconnaissance, close-support and training aeroplanes could use the variable geometry concept which would allow short take-off, high performance, and a good payload/range. Cross operation could ultimately occur from ships at sea, and that is something that we must continue to emphasise. Whatever considerations our partners in Europe may have—the Germans, for example, to meet the offset costs of stationing American troops in Europe—whatever the political considerations, this aircraft must continue. Both industrially and militarily it is vital.
Then there is the 748. I favour the 748 because it is a proven aircraft. It has an established company behind it. Logistically, it would be easier to support in the Royal Air Force. I understand that the initial cost will be higher, but it has a great training rôle for navigators. The Jetstream is a smaller aeroplane which will have less equipment. For those reasons, and because the 748 is already in Royal Air Force service I should support it rather than the Jet-stream.
I am glad that a further squadron of Buccaneers has been ordered, but as with Nimrod, political considerations inhibit export sales, as they could with Jaguar also, and I hope that that is something to which my hon. Friend will direct his attention.
Tonight I shall mention only heavy lift helicopters, because the various collaborative helicopter programmes are going well. The absence of a heavy lift helicopter is a serious gap in the equipment of the Royal Air Force which will inhibit its capacity to fight forward, par-

ticularly from deployed sites in Europe. That situation must be put right. If it is, I hope that the Chinook, or whatever is ordered, will be constructed at West-lands, or that a similar arrangement is made to maximise employment.
Another area which could benefit employment is the reserve forces element of the Royal Air Force. In his statement about the Bulldog order the Minister said that it was intended to replace the Chipmunk in the University Air Squadrons and the primary flying training schools. That is admirable, but nothing was said about the air experience flights around the country. About 13 of those flights are now equipped with Chipmunks, and if Bulldog were brought in to replace them it would be good not only for air experience flights, but for Scottish Aviation.
I have also made other proposals about a jet element for the reserves, and if Strikemaster were ordered that would be valuable. There is a danger that the Strikemaster line, which has been very profitable—over 100 units have been sold to a number of air forces—will come to an end. If we only had a further Government order for the Royal Air Force, further developments of this most excellent training and cheap close support aircraft could be provided which would provide more work and more export potential.
While I am on jet trainers and close support aircraft, the 1182 exercises my mind because it reminds me of nothing more than the Gnat order at the end of the 1950s. There was then a question of whether the Royal Air Force should be equipped with the Hunter trainer or the Gnat, and for political reasons, the choice was made of the Gnat. It was an advanced aeroplane designed by Petter, but its performance was in no way better than the Hunter or the Swift, which were brought out several years before.
I have to say this because I am urging my hon. Friend to bring forward as far as possible the 1182 order, so that he may be able to maximise employment at Hawker Siddeley and replace the Hunter element at the Tactical Weapons Unit at Chivenor—next year at Brawdy—and the Hunter element at No. 4 Flying Training School at Valley. This would mean more work for Hawkers, and


would mean that the 1182 would be more competitive with other comparable close support and training aeroplanes in the early 1970s. It would also entail the possibility of selling further refurbished Hunters, which are very profitable to Hawkers, early on. I do not think that one could possibly sell the Gnat refurbished to anyone! For that reason they should be kept in service till the last possible moment with No. 4 F.T.S., and be the last to be replaced.
The Jet Provost Mk 5s have been introduced into Royal Air Force service without being fitted with rocket rails or gyro gunsights or guns for weapon training or for operations. This is a mistake philosophically, because weaponry should be introduced as early as possible into the pilot's flying training but industrially it is a mistake because, if this facility were provided, even retrospectively, it would provide valuable new work—and that is what is needed now. If there is any shortfall on Jet Provosts in the years ahead, I hope that they will be made up with the weapon-equipped and slightly more potent 167 Strikemaster variant.
On the civil side, I am as thrilled as everyone else with the Concorde decision. Even in Bradford, that bastion of the wool textile trade, Concorde has its ramifications: we make the turbine blades and the electrical generating equipment. This is an example of the nation-wide fall-out of Concorde. I am delighted by the Secretary of State's obvious practical enthusiasm for this most admirable project.
But, in the field of wide-bodied civil airliners, I was intrigued by the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), who seemed, when advocating one with a smaller fuselage than existing wide-bodied airlines like the Tristar and a power plant of the RB211 variety, to be suggesting nothing less than the old BAC 311. Some of us regretted that cancellation very much because it would have provided the opportunity for funding an uprated 211, which would have the potential for sales for stretched Tristars and the like, and also because we felt that there was, per se, a requirement for a wide-bodied, twin-engined jet, which is an obvious gap in the civil airliner sector. We perhaps cannot meet

that now, but I should like to see us go for V/STOL in a big way—not just design studies: let us cut some metal and get a prototype flying, as my hon. Friend suggested.
I remember well that eloquent interjection from my hon. ex-airline captain Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) when he suggested that, in our approach to the environment and in analysing the effect that technology can have in mitigating the evils of over-urbanisation, it was crazy to put Foulness under concrete when one could get a much better return by going for V-STOL. This is the kind of futuristic forward-looking approach that I should like to see the Government pursue.
In the past there has been no sphere of technical endeavour in which we have not been in the lead as a nation. If we grasped the opportunity, V-STOL is another area where we could be in the lead. So could space, and so it should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East mentioned Sir Barnes Wallis. We must pursue space shuttles and hypersonics. It is not fanciful to imagine trips to Sydney in a couple of hours. The design work has already been initiated in this country. We are going into collaboration at least with the United States in this area. I hope that my hon. Friend will give those ventures his support with Government funds.
I turn now to power plants. There is a lot of new work going on which promises well. There is the RB211, the Adour, and the 199 which will have a remarkable power-weight ratio. It is a very advanced engine.
One area which gives me a certain amount of misgiving is what I call the medium thrust turbo fan—the 20,000 lb. static thrust area. The French seem to be going into collaboration with the Americans to produce a power plant of this power rating. For our future in the civil sector we should certainly be in that area.
Then obiter dicta, as it were, company structure and the regional implications of the industry. Big decisions will have to be taken on the structure of the British aerospace industry. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have claimed that Hawker Siddeley Aviation will be in jeopardy if it does not get certain orders. That may


be. None the less, rationalisation, or some such word, will doubtless come from the Marshall Report. If so, I suggest that we should not go for another monolithic monopoly like Rolls-Royce for the aerospace industry. I should be far happier if one of our big producers went into partnership with a European concern than that we should have a purely British merger. I think that it would be much healthier.
I must emphasise that not only the balance of payments, but the employment considerations of a viable aerospace industry are essential and crucial for the regions. This applies not just to Bristol, Derby, Brough, Hatfield and Kingston, but, strangely enough, to the development areas and the North which face the worst unemployment prospects. Often in those regions there are little publicised, but extremely valuable, sub-contracting companies whose profitability and prosperity are essential to the economies of those areas. They are high technology industries which often provide high earnings in areas where a low earnings economy is endemic and has bedevilled the economic structure for generations. For those reasons alone, I should think it well worth the Government supporting our aircraft industry.
Finally, looking at the civil side, I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that the Royal Air Force has an air transport force which will require wide-bodied equipment if it is to be able to deploy forces quickly around the world. It may also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) suggested, require Concorde for rapid reinforcement. But it will certainly need wide-bodied equipment, and I hope that my hon. Friend, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, will address himself to this as well.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I did not intend to take part in the debate until about half an hour ago, but I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for initiating it and for the title he has selected.
I have two principal reasons for my interest in the subject. One is obviously that I am a Member for Bristol, a great

centre of the aircraft industry. The other is that I have had the privilege and honour of being in the Chair of Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which has been looking at British space activities very recently.
I said in an intervention that if Government money was to be poured into the aircraft industry, as it is, the Government in return had a right to insist on sound management policies, or policies as sound as can be obtained. This point is very topical in Bristol, because, in spite of the fears expressed about the stability of the aircraft industry and the danger of unemployment, we have had a long-drawn-out strike in the aircraft industry there. It is unfortunate and regrettable, and we should all like to see it brought to an end as soon as possible. I do not know the latest position to this hour.
That industrial dispute has a general lesson. In Bristol there has been a great tendency to put the blame upon the employees. The local establishment, including the Press, has come down hard on the employees throughout, and I say with regret that the Conservative Members for the city have not been particularly helpful in this respect. I speak as an engineer with some knowledge of industry. In such a dispute the first people who should be looked at are the management. Much of the difficulty has been that because of financial and other changes we have moved from having in command men who were true industrialists, engineers and technologists, men who had a feel and instinct for the industry, to the accountants and men of figures. That is why the management in the industry is becoming increasingly remote from the everyday lives of those who work in it, from the lives not only of the industrial workers but of many of the technicians, technologists, professional engineers and so on.
It is the business of a Government when it pours money into a publicly-supported industry to see that those who manage the industry are capable and understand its needs, not only its commercial and technical needs but its human needs.

Mr. Robert Adley: I do not wish to pursue this argument across the Floor of the House, but


the hon. Gentleman is blaming the Conservative Members and he previously blamed the management for the strike. The work force is today blaming the Western Daily Press for creating the strike. If those workers realised how dependent their jobs are on public money, might not they think it better to have jaw-jaw before war-war and keep working, if they think they have a case, instead of going on strike? The unions have refused to have a secret ballot, and even the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is hardly unanimous support among the work force.

Mr. Palmer: I also do not wish to pursue this too far. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the candy floss of the argument. Does he really suppose that men put themselves out of work and subject their families to privation unless they have a genuine grievance? Of course not. No one would suppose they would. His intervention is all too typical of the view of the local establishment, and I hope that it will be noted by the workers in the industry. A word must be said on their behalf because they are having a hard time in Bristol and no one has been anxious to stand up for them until now.
I turn to the space industry, briefly because I hope that we will have the opportunity of a full-scale debate on the report. The starting point of the report of the Select Committee was that Britain cannot afford to neglect space and its opportunities. It is important to make the point because I found, as I am sure other hon. Members have found, that there is a widespread opinion among the public that space is an all or nothing activity. No one would seriously suggest that in terms of resources Britain can match the efforts of the United States or the Soviet Union. But this should not blind us to our importance in what I call the second league of advanced industrial nations such as France, Germany and Japan. We should take pride of place in that second league.
To an advanced industrial country in the 20th century, space is now just as significant for development and exploitation—and I use the word in its best sense —as was the sea in the 17th century or the air in the early part of the present century. It was for this reason that Sub-

Committee B of the Select Committee on Science and Technology was a little critical of the present official attitude of extreme caution towards the development of the United Kingdom's space activities. I hope the Under-Secretary will note this point. One of the Departments which gave evidence said that this country must identify objectives which are within our means and our capabilities. Note the vast caution embedded deep in that statement. There is nothing here of a spirit of adventure.
The Committee felt that this over-careful approach should be abandoned and in its place should be put a positive intention to see that our able people, scientific and technical, manual and intellectual, should gain the opportunity to develop their skills in space techniques. Though it may be a little unfashionable to say so just now, certainly in parts of my party at present, we should not run away from or decry technological prestige. We said bluntly that a country such as Britain, where living standards depend to an enormous extent on the widest technological advances, we cannot afford to ignore the invigorating effect on the rising generation of technical people of success in difficult areas of technology. In other words, morale counts tremendously.
The history of British space activity goes back to the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was conceived in the first place as part of a joint European effort through bodies such as E.S.R.O., the European Space Research Organisation, and E.L.D.O., the European Launcher Development Organisation. In 1962, E.L.D.O. started the ill-fated launcher "Europa I", based on the British military Blue Streak rocket, with a French second stage and a German third stage. There was a said history of technical failure with the project, however, due in part, strangely enough, to German inexperience in working high temperature metal. It is extraordinary but it is the case. One would have thought that the Germans at least would have understood such things.
It is also true that organisationally international projects of this complexity need a realistic delegation of responsibility to a united management with nationality put aside. This was not the case with the "Europa I" project. In


practice, with the escalating costs, individual nations looked jealously to their own advantage from the programme and in 1968 the Labour Government unfortunately withdrew from the European launching of satellites and announced that in future Britain would hire facilities in the United States.
The Select Committee looked into this in considerable detail and took evidence from various industrial witnesses who had varying views on the rightness or otherwise of the decision to rely in future on American capability for the launching of satellites. The British Aircraft Corporation accepted the decision as economically sound; Hawker Siddeley felt that it was a dangerous situation for this country for the United States to have such power, because if the United States controlled the launcher, in the long run it would possibly control the satellites as well. Hawker Siddeley felt this to be an uncomfortable dependence.
Some of us, even though we were of the Opposition, hoped perhaps that, with the new Government, there might be a different outlook on this matter, but the policy has been continued in the Department and the Minister, in his evidence to the Select Committee, very firmly thought that the American launchers would meet all our needs for the foreseeable future.
Hence, reluctantly, on the weight of the evidence and in view of the fact that Britain had made the break with the European launcher, we concluded that it would be difficult and expensive to rejoin the European collaboration. Nevertheless, I hope that the opinion of continuing with the American launchers or returning to the European project will be kept open.
But I have given enough of my time to the rather sad history of the European space effort. The question now is, what shape our future British space policy should take? It seemed to us in the Select Committee that British policy in future should be more decisive. We thought in particular that the time had come to end the untidy system of diffusing the responsibility over several Government Departments and also sharing it with bodies such as the Post Office Corporation in the communications and air traffic control sectors.
In our view, the case for an independent check and appraisal on general progress has become powerful—a view in which the manufacturers who gave evidence concurred. We thought the Government should set objectives which are more commercial in character than has been the case in the past, and that the cancellation of Black Arrow should not mean any paring back in effort but the transfer of energies to other applications such as weather forecasting, where Britain at the moment seems to be faltering. Perhaps our strongest and most decisive recommendation was that there should be an independent British national space agency—nothing as elaborate as the American organisation, heaven forbid, but certainly something which would be fairly close to, say, the French system. The details of this body would need to be worked out, but it would be interesting to know the Government's reaction to the principle.
The creation of a national space agency to look ahead and anticipate needs is important for another reason. Soon this country will have to make up its mind about the American post-Apolla programme in which the European nations have jointly been asked to participate. There is a proposal for a space satellite launcher by a shuttle from earth to varying orbits which, it is said, will more economically in the long run take the place of the present launching systems. The Americans, for reasons not only of cost but of world co-operation in space, are anxious that Europe should take part. The position of the United Kingdom is important as part of general European co-operation.
B.A.C., in its evidence to the Select Committee, said that, in its view,
technological and managerial innovation would be stimulated by British participation in post-Apollo".
Already we are beginning to see, as has been said, in aerospace new European grouping of companies, including United Kingdom companies. This will be a surer basis for co-operation in future than the more artificial national state cooperation insisted on earlier in British space activity in relation to Europe but a lot depends on the British attitude to post-Apollo.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will be as cautious as his predecessors have been—I should like him to be different, but I suspect that he will not be—but I wish to quote one paragraph from the Select Committee's report:
Discussion relating to the American post-Apollo programme may well serve to catalyse future European co-operation in space.
The Select Committee made that point strongly. It goes on to say:
The outcome of the studies by ESRO and ELDO is not yet known, nor has the American offer been precisely formulated, although British firms are already actively seeking a role in association with American prime contractors. When a definite proposal is considered, we hope that in co-operation with Europe the United Kingdom will vigorously pursue the potentialities of participation".
I hope that the Under-Secretary will pay attention to those quite strong words and will give the House a helpful reply.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) for choosing this subject for debate, even some of us were a bit astonished at the impudence of his choice, because he was a supporter of the Government whose only contribution to the aerospace industry was not to cancel Concorde. I add my congratulations to the Government on announcing their firm support for the Concorde project. Having, like others present in the Chamber, been fortunate enough to fly in Concorde, I have no doubt that it will achieve the commercial success forecast for it. I look forward very keenly to the placing by B.O.A.C. of an order for the aircraft before many more weeks have passed.
I would now turn to some aspects of civil aviation and treat them quite briefly. It is worth reminding ourselves that if we discount the collaborative contracts, such as Concorde and the A300, there is no guarantee that in four years' time there will be work continuing in any British factory on any civil aircraft. This is a very serious state of affairs, and, incidentally, a very serious indictment of the situation as it was left by the previous Administration. There are some steps which could be taken in the short term to remedy this. I do not happen to be convinced by many of the argu-

ments in favour of the HS 748 put about this evening. Some of the arguments which the union side at Hawker Siddeley have been putting forward go straight into the knocking copy category. They do not do the union side any credit, they do not really touch on the issues involved and I hope very much that hon. Members will discard them. There is moreover a case to be argued on the achievements of Scottish Aviation, which is backing the Jetstream project. This company certainly should not be belittled and hon. Members who have taken the trouble to go to Prestwick and see for themselves can testify to this.
On a slightly larger scale there is a need to stretch the Trident production line. B.E.A. will soon have to replace some of its Vanguard and Trident aircraft. I hope that the industry will be able to take advantage of the quieter Spey engine, because if we can only reduce the noise of these engines we can surely add to the sales potential of the existing Trident types.
Something should also be done to lengthen the BAC 1–11 production line. Specifically I have in mind the desirability of ordering two aircraft of the 475 type to re-equip the Queen's Flight. I say that with all the more pleasure this evening in the confident expectation that my remarks will cause the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) to choke when he reads HANSARD tomorrow morning.
To touch briefly on the engine side, I think we should not under-estimate the political content of the RB211 programme. There is a great deal of credibility riding on the back of the RB211. We cannot ignore the fact that this is closely interlinked with the Lockheed 1011. Since this is so I believe we must accept that if there is a British market in which the Lockheed 1011 has some sales expectation, the Government ought to make it clear that there is no barrier to the taking of a decision at the earliest possible moment. If, specifically, this means that B.E.A. has a preference for the 1011 as part of the corporation's re-equipment programme, then the Government should make it known to those who run the affairs of B.E.A. that they see positive advantage in getting the decision taken earlier rather than later.
In all these brief comments there is one common theme, that we must make up our minds to maximise the technology which we have already developed. It is all very well to talk about the hypersonic aircraft, and some of the other futuristic types mentioned in this Chamber this evening: but we must also recognise the danger that we may fail to cash in to the full on what we have already achieved.
That brings me to the longer term. I do not know whether the Marshall Report is to be made public. I gather that, it is probably not, but I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be instantly familiar with another document, which I have here, the Rapport de Comite des Industries Aeronautique et Spatiale. I have the full text in French, but perhaps it would be more convenient if I translate as I go on. This is a document which demonstrates the interest which the French take in this industry and the way in which they seek to embody it in their forward planning. It is, I suppose, France's "Marshall", and published at that.
The objectives stand out plainly in the document. There is the objective of national defence:
To maintain the ability to create within the French industry…the equipment needed for our defence.
Second, exports:
To strengthen the policy of expanding exports of military aircraft and associated equipment….
Third,
To establish firm foundations for a French aeronautical industry which will be competitive in the world markets, which alone can ensure its continued expansion in the future.
The fourth, specifically on the subject of space, shows a keen determination on the part of the French planners to capitalise upon the potential which lies there.
I should like to see some similar declaration of intent from our side. I am reinforced the more in that view when I compare the projections of British and French aerospace spending, so far as it is possible to compare them at all. Whereas, in 1971, we shall be spending roughly the same amount as France on Concorde, the French will be spending over £35 million on other projects, including the Airbus, the Mercure, helicopters,

and so on, and we shall be spending nothing. While we have a lead over the French in commercial research and development, they are to spend on space in 1971 10 times the expenditure projected by Her Majesty's Government.
This is not a state of affairs which can go on for long without our getting hopelessly left behind. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recognises that we must put more of an effort in here if we wish to stay in the race at all.
We must concentrate on the development of a small quiet engine. One of the paradoxes of the situation is that in a few years there will be a lot of quiet large aeroplanes and a lot of noisy small ones. Such a situation will not be tolerated for long. We had better get in ahead and anticipate the developing market.
I share the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), in the idea of putting the RB211 on a sawn-off A300 airframe. This is a project with considerable potential. But, at the same time, we must not ignore the point that quite a number of schedules and a large amount of air transport demand will be concentrated on aircraft of an order of size of 80 to 100 seats.
To summarise my feeling on the whole subject, I think that the Government inherited a difficult and, indeed, almost chaotic situation. The hon. Member for Newark showed no recognition of that, and I am sorry that he did not, because he really knows better. The Government have done a great deal to bring order out of chaos—and the spirit of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) hovers over our deliberations tonight to remind us all just how chaotic it was. What we have to face now—I believe that this Government will face it—is the need to have a long-term strategy. Without it, the survival of the industry really is in danger.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I should be the last to claim expertise in the aerospace industry, and I have listened with great interest to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and those who followed him. I can only suggest that, in return, hon. Members should come to


future debates on education and social security, because, though not expert on aerospace, many of us are rapidly becoming expert on the problems of redundancy and unemployment and on the waste of skilled labour in our great industrial areas.
My interest in the debate is threefold. My constituency lies midway between the Woodford and Chadderton factories of Hawker Siddeley; it houses workers from both factories, and, what is more, it houses a number of people who did work there but who are now unemployed. My second link is that, before coming to the House, I was head of a secondary school within a mile of the Chadderton factory, and it is on my conscience that I urged boys to advance their education and take craft apprenticeships and technical apprenticeships with that company. Some of those boys are now unemployed. The third possible link is that my mother used to repair the fabric of Fairey Aviation aircraft during the war, so she can probably claim to be an even greater expert than I am.
I make no apology for introducing a short-term factor into the debate. If there is no short-term future for the British aircraft industry and its workers, there can be no long-term future for the industry because the workers will be elsewhere. There has been a great deal of redundancy at these two factories, and the employees are tired of hearing the argument that if we could buy 2,000 this will become a viable proposition. The word "viable" is getting on their nerves, and one wonders whether it means the same as "vanishing point". The employees are anxious to secure the procurement by the R.A.F. of the HS748. This seems to be preferable to the predominantly foreign-built Jetstream aircraft. It has been argued that the 748 may be too big for the purpose for which the R.A.F. requires it, but it can be used not only for pilot training but also for training other aircrew. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that.
I understand that the estimate for the 25 aircraft is much greater for the 748 than for the Jetstream, but there are other factors. Virtually the whole of the 748 is manufactured in North-West England and Scotland. The Jetstream engines are made in France and the tail units in Canada, and it is largely an

assembly job in Scotland. It has been suggested that the 748 with its Rolls-Royce engines will provide more employment in Scotland than will the other aircraft. The R.A.F. is already using the 748, and aircrews and maintenance staff are trained in its use. It is a multipurpose aircraft and it also has a high second-hand value. It has been suggested to the workers' representatives that there are R.A.F. objections to the specification. The firm and the workers argue that it complies with R.A.F. Specification 398. Are they right or wrong?
What is the Government's long-term plan for the industry, particularly in the Greater Manchester area? The design teams who are being kept in existence want to know. The production workers, who have already suffered redundancies and, because of lack of work for the design teams will probably suffer greater redundancies 18 months hence, want to know too. Is there a future in the aircraft industry in the greater Manchester area?
A future for the aircraft industry means in the main a Government policy for the aircraft industry. This is where Government interference is welcome. I understand that decisions on the choice of aircraft for the R.A.F. may be taken before the House meets again on 17th January, and I hope the points I have raised will be taken into consideration before that decision is made.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: One of our problems in trying to address ourselves to the future of the aerospace industry is that we have no single Minister to whom we can speak. There are at least two, and maybe three, Ministers whom it would be a pleasure to see accompanying my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the Front bench this evening, and he is obviously restricted in that he must preclude from his reply many of the items on military affairs. This is a pity, but I hope he will excuse us if we dwell on military affairs as well as the affairs over which he has jurisdiction.
The industry does not recognise barriers between military and civil markets. It is the strongest aerospace industry outside the United States. It has over the last 10 years indulged in a tremendous amount of masochism about


itself and its future. Successive Governments have deluged it with plans—Plowden and now there is to be Marshall —and it is an industry which tends to turn in on itself and to query itself when it should be assisted by the Government to believe in itself and to exploit its capabilities.
This is not peculiar to the United Kingdom; it is something from which the United States also suffers. The environmental lobby in the United States managed to kill the American supersonic transport and, as Sir George Edwards said earlier today, the juggernaut of environmentalism overcame the whole of the scientific capability of the United States. This was a great shame and we should not regard the industry as a polluter in the way the industry often seeks to defend itself. It is not that. It is a remarkable industry employing the most virile brains in the country. It is an industry which, in terms of production in pounds sterling, surpasses any other type of industry in this country.
The industry is not just military or civil aviation, but is a composite of military and civil manufacturing and operating usage. Indeed in all about 1 million people are involved in the industry. Her Majesty's Government now and in the past ought to have taken much more responsibility in recognising that the Government are the prime customer of the industry. There is a need to recognise that the rôle should be that of pace-setter, rather than that the Government should be called upon to give it central planning. The industry does not need control from the Government. What it needs is recognition that the Government are the prime customer.
Everybody is delighted with the progress and promise of Concorde, and I hope the Prime Minister will still fly to Bermuda in it. It is interesting to see that the way in which the Concorde can develop is not just in terms of the aircraft itself. Sir George Edwards said today that this aircraft gives the United States the prospect of overcoming its environmentalist lobby and its effect on the aerospace industry by taking up with us the ability to continue Concorde as it now is and for the future to bring it forward as a new and better aircraft in an enlarged version.
The investment being made in Concorde now is not investment for all time. It is a trampoline from which the whole project will escalate as a means of excellent supersonic communication. At the same time we have to face the question of whether in civil aerospace we should consider the need or the duty of our airlines to buy one aircraft or another. Hawker Siddeley tell us that the A 300 is the aircraft B.E.A. ought to have. On the other hand, the Government have a duty to make sure that the RB 211 and the Tristar are exploited as far as possible. I hope the Government will leave it to the airlines—the customer —to make this decision. In the past airlines in this country have damned by their choice in the claims for subsidy the prospects of aircraft which otherwise could have been extraordinary successful.
We have been told by successive Governments that collaboration is essential to the future of the aerospace industry. There has been the welcome order for the Bulldogs and for the 11–28, both of which are entirely British projects and which prove to the British aircraft industry that it is capable of doing things on its own; it does not need politicians to tell it to collaborate. Collaboration has been involved in the Jaguar, the WG 13 and now the M.R.C.A. aircraft and this is what can be done if our manufacturers learn how to collaborate. It is a little sad to think that in the first instance collaboration was dictated by politicians rather than by the demands of the market. I will come on to that matter a little later.
It is a great shame that the Royal Navy has taken 10 years to carry out its trials on the value of the Harrier. I was on board "Ark Royal" when Harrier landed and took off from it back in the 1960s and, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier referring to trials on this same carrier last year, it is desperately disappointing to find that trials are still needed. The U.S. Navy never carried out a single carrier trial in order to decide they wanted the aeroplane, and nor did the U.S. Marine Corps. It is an excellent aircraft which ought to have the blessing of the Government with the order from the Royal Navy soon.
If there is some doubt in the Royal Air Force about whether they can provide cover for the Fleet, they should be


honest and admit that they cannot. There is a totally different concept in the operation of the Harrier and one which should be allowed to proceed quickly without obstruction from the R.A.F. about its duty to provide cover for the Fleet. The Harrier is a must for the Navy, and the sooner it is ordered the better for the sake of export orders.
I should like to look to the future. The aerospace industry always faces the problem that the time span of its projects is greater than that of any single Government. It takes from 15 years to get from research to production. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) may decry Sir Barnes Wallis and his hypersonics. He must remember, if he quotes the "French Plan" that although it may take 10 or 20 years to come to these hypersonics it is essential that we conduct and construct a strategy which provides us with the ability to look into the future. It is for this that we should respect people like Sir Barnes Wallis who show us the need for a strategy rather than talking, from debate to debate, about what we do next.
In aircraft construction it is generally assumed that it is the airframe to which an engine is strapped and to which systems are later attached. In our strategy we must consider the value of always ascribing to the airframe manufacturer the leadership in design. In an aircraft such as the multi-rôle combat aircraft the systems make the aircraft possible. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows that I was in discussions with him for a long time about the placing of British systems in the multi-rôle combat aircraft. Collaboration can work meaningfully only if it is based on market demand rather than on what politicians believe the industry should be. Politicians showed the way through the industry into the Common Market. But at the end we must provide an aircraft which is workable, and this rests more on understanding and capability than the carving up by percentages of an aircraft programme.
This country's systems capability far exceeds the total systems capability of the whole of Western Europe. This should have been recognised by the previous Government when they chose to carve up the M.R.C.A. programme. I do not

doubt that the programme will be a great success. But it is important that if politicians are making decisions they should recognise capability rather than just subscribe to the desire of nationalism on the part of any country in Western Europe. There is no question about this.
If one looks at the way in which the French are supposed to be collaborating with us, while they cheerfully sign, through S.N.E.C.M.A., the aero-engine manufacturers of France, an agreement with the General Electric Company of the United States, at the same time protesting that we should always be involved with them, this is not an augury of goodwill for the future.
We must now allow ourselves to be put in a position where we construct political arrangements for the future which permit others to provide themselves with employment. We have heard talk about redundancies this evening. There will be nothing worse than to find that politicians, over the time span of an aircraft, have constructed arrangements which merely involve the automatic redundancy of workers in this industry because they can see no further than the need for statistics rather than looking at capability.
In the 1960s, this country's aerospace industry built up the French aerospace industry. In the 1970s, this country's aerospace industry will build up the German aerospace industry. In terms of British entry into the Common Market, we should be delighted. I hope that the end products are good. But we must not forget that ours is the second largest industry outside the United States. We must not throw that away. It is a unique capability and one which has become for many parts of the country the sole and almost the traditional industry.
One aspect about the future on which I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to comment is what we are to do about short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft. It is not just a matter of producing the aircraft. It is a matter of looking at the problem of the infrastructure—the system by which the aircraft will be operated. One has to concern oneself with the departure point, the arrival point, and the air traffic control in the middle. We have to look to the Government to give leadership


on how we are to tackle this problem, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some information about it.
We need to know not only whether we are involved in the infrastructure study on V/STOL on our own or with Europe, or whether the United States want to be included. It is essential to try to arrive at international standards which will allow steep approaches and departures, and which will establish clearly that we want to get quiet engines operating and at what levels those engines must be seen and heard to be operating. I have in mind the type of programme followed by the Blind Landing Experimental Unit in this country, which took 25 years to produce a working landing system. I hope that this infrastructure study will take place far faster. It is a subject in which we have a distinct leadership, and one on which Europe will welcome our lead in setting up a Government study.
The means are available. Quiet engines are with us in the shape of the RB211. Quiet engines can be promoted by devices like the Dowty variable pitch entry turbine. We have the means. All that is necessary is for the technological knowledge to be brought together to provide the complete system.
My other point about the future was referred to by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who spoke about the space shuttle. We have a great deal of knowledge about how to deal with the problems of the space shuttle which derives from our knowledge of the operations of the Concorde. The ability to dispatch and deliver a very large vehicle from a supersonic speed is known in a way in which the Americans have no knowledge. This would be an excellent contribution for the country to make to the space shuttle programme.
We are at the brink of a new ability to use our knowledge of aerospace technology. I hope that the Government will recognise this and respond to the challenging opportunity of using British brains. For too long the industry has been the shuttlecock of politicians. All those in the industry remember the 1957 White Paper and the 1964 cancellations. I hope that the Government will recognise their duty to use the people of the industry in a way in which they want to be

used—as a spearhead challenging the frontiers of science.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman seems to be rather cynical about the rôle of politicians in this matter. Mention has been made, by myself and by my hon. Friends, of the immense financial contribution to the industry made by the Government. As custodians of public money, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is our function to try to understand the industry and exercise proper control of it. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and I are the only members of the Royal Aeronautical Society in the House. It is important that we should have people who can combine a knowledge of the industry with the kind of stewardship we have to exercise. After all, in the last year or so there have been a number of failures of management, the problems of which we are still dealing with.

Mr. Warren: I am delighted to appear as a fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society rather than the Member of Parliament for Hastings. One of the reasons why I am in the House is that after 25 years in the industry I became fed up with politicians cancelling every project on which I worked. I remember vividly trying to run a factory with some 300 people in 1964 while the party opposite—now happily opposite—cancelled the TSR 2, the Hawker Siddeley 681 and the P1154, and continued to try to put me out of work. I can find no reason to be anything other than cynical about politicians. My experience subjectively has been very bad. Much as I admire the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop), with whom I am on remarkably good terms, neither he nor I ought to think well of politicians.

Mr. Bishop: We did not sack 25,000 people in the industry in one year.

Mr. Warren: Since the war we have failed to use the ability of this industry. We have always tried to dictate to it; the industry has failed to stand up to this. Between the pair of us, the industry and the Government, we have got ourselves into a position which does not do justice to the people in the industry.
The debate is about the future of the British aerospace industry, and at last I hope that we have a chance for the industry and the Government—and both


sides of the House—to get together. We have a great industry, which we must develop. It is on the frontiers of science. It lives that way. It tries to contribute not only to the well-being of the nation, in the general sense of those words, but also to the challenge and the conquering of the challenge constantly presenting itself to the people on the drawing boards, the factory floor, the flight test sheds and in the air. The British people find this unique and satisfying. It is an industry well worth while.
I hope that the Government will look to the men and women in the industry in a way in which, perhaps, they have not been regarded in the past—as people who can in the long term greatly contribute to the strength of Britain and Britain's future in terms of our ability to produce a unique capability and one unequalled in Europe.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I start my remarks by answering a point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). I apologise for mentioning the hon. Member in his absence, but as he is a man of integrity I know that he would not have wished to mislead the House in any way on the question of the 748 versus the Jetstream. The R.A.F. is looking for a replacement trainer and the choice of aircraft cannot be decided simply by picking on something which is available at the moment rather than going for the best possible project.
The engine in the Jetstream is French just now, but I understand from Scottish Aviation that if it gets an order from the R.A.F., Rolls-Royce will be capable of supplying the engine for this trainer. As for the Canadian components in the Scottish Aviation aircraft, these are far outweighed by the volume of exports which Scottish Aviation sends to Canada. It is, therefore, wrong to say that it is a question of the 748 versus the Jetstream, a foreign, or half-foreign, aircraft.
If we were completely to disregard the vehicle itself and just take something that happens to be British and available now, we might as well suggest that the R.A.F. buys VC10s from Weybridge and uses them as training vehicles. It would hardly be the most suitable aircraft, but

it might fulfil the requirements laid down by the hon. Member for Gorton.
I congratulate, in his absence, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace for the way in which he has grappled with the monumental problems bequeathed to him when the Labour Government left office. I also congratulate, as I have done in the Early Day Motion which I tabled today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for not only flying in Concorde last Friday but for making such a firm commitment to the aircraft upon landing. In case he does not know, I want him to know that his remarks have completely transformed the atmosphere in the factories of Bristol and elsewhere where Concorde is being manufactured.
We are discussing the future of the aerospace industry for which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) pointed out, long-term plans are essential. It is no use expecting a project which has taken 10 or 15 years to develop from the research and development stage to the sales stage to produce dividends in 10 minutes. If we were to listen to the dismal Jimmies who tell us that Concorde will never make money, I suspect that we should be listening to people without any knowledge of the potential and historic ability of the British aerospace industry not only in the matter of home sales, but in export sales.
By the end of July of this year the industry had achieved exports worth in excess of £188 million and there is no doubt that in the next 10, 20 or 30 years Concorde, its spare parts and technological spin-off from its development will, not only now but with the Olympus engine, keep us in a healthy economic situation because of its export value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to the example set by the French for its aircraft industry. I urge the Minister to take note of the commercial orientation of the French aerospace industry. The French decided that they would be in the airbus and supersonic business because, in their view, these were profitable areas for their industry and for the long-term employment of their work people, not to mention the possibility of these areas putting


them ahead and giving them the leadership in the aerospace industry. As hon. Members have said, only by planning ahead in this way can we remain in the mainstream of the civil aviation requirements of this country.
It would be wrong to think solely in terms of European or North American markets for our civil aerospace products. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace on having the foresight to go to Japan recently; and to realise the very great importance of the Japanese market to European and North American aerospace manufacturers in the years ahead. There is no doubt that the Japanese are great innovators, and appreciate perhaps more than any other nation something that is new. By visiting Japan, my right hon. Friend will have enhanced the interest of the Japanese and Japan Airlines in Concorde. Whilst we should all have liked to see B.O.A.C. the first airline flying Concorde, if Japan Airlines express a firm interest we believe to be the case, I am sure that none of us will wish to discourage them from signing a contract.
I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) will later be talking rather more about Concorde and I do not wish to trespass on his preserve, but we will all agree that at the moment, as a result of the failure of successive Governments to stick to long-term plans for the British aerospace industry, the British aircraft industry is far too dependent on Concorde. We have too many eggs in one basket.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give serious thought to the development of short take-off and vertical take-off aircraft, and to make sure, with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, that joint defence and civil use of all future projects is taken into account before the planning and development stages are reached. In this way, we can both save money and make money—save it at the beginning and make it in the end.
Of all industries, the aerospace industry is one of growth. Employment in it is employment which gives pleasure and pride of craftsmanship to the men on the shop floor. In these days of mass production, it is important to foster and

encourage in every way we can in all our industries the spirit of the pioneers who developed the first steam engine and had a real pride in their craftsmanship and in the industrial technology they were developing.
Not only is there pride in building these aircraft but great public satisfaction in seeing these achievements in the air. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) told me this evening that when it was announced that Concorde would fly past at the recent air show at Woodford, Cheshire, the organisers estimated that 125,000 people turned out to see it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) related the costs of Concorde to those of the RB211. We sometimes appear to be self-conscious about the costs involved in developing aircraft projects, but when we look, for instance, over the past 10 years we realise that British Rail has swallowed about £1,000 million of public money, with remarkably little to show for it in terms of exports. Money invested in the aerospace industry is a very good and worthwhile use of public funds.
It is comparatively easy to build the aircraft, if one has the brains. It is not so easy to sell them. I would ask my hon. Friend not to be too dogmatically involved with the determination to stay out of the marketing of projects like the Concorde. It does not make sense to spend large sums of public money on financing and producing a vehicle and then to say that selling it is up to the manufacturer. It is not realistic to expect airlines to place orders for Concorde until they receive—as they now have—firm and positive assurances from the manufacturing and financing Governments that that project will remain in existence for at least 20 years.
When the Minister for Aerospace gave his assurance in Burbank recently that the RB211 would be there for 20 years-plus, he was doing what he knew he had to do to give the airline customers of the Tristar the encouragement to place orders for this very expensive piece of equipment.
I asked my hon. Friend to do all he can to drop any masks of dogma which any of us may have over the marketing.
Perhaps when the British Exports Board starts its work in January, he will talk to it about the Government's rôle in using all available channels to assist with the marketing of these projects, in which so much public money is invested.
I emphasise again the importance of not allowing the world to get the impression that Concorde is a French aeroplane with a few British bits in it. The danger is not to our self-esteem hut that, five years' hence, when the Japanese, the Germans or the America ns are thinking of a major collaborative venture, they will think, in terms of design leadership, of talking first to the French rather than to us. This is why the Government should do everything they can to blow Concorde's trumpet as a great British achievement.
I have great admiration for what the French have done in this respect, but I was a little worried to read in the Evening Standard today the words of Henri Ziegler, referring to Aerospatiale and "Concorde's British contractor", the British Aircraft Corporation. Few of us who have taken an interest in the British aviation industry would find that an acceptable form of words. I only hope that it is a mistranslation.
I should like to say many things about marketing and the Government's responsibility to refute the wild, irresponsible and ill-informed so-called environmental arguments against Concorde and supersonic flight in general. So many of them say blatantly that Concorde will make an ear-splitting noise, yet they can see in today's HANSARD that, in answer to a Written Question from me, my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace said that in terms of anti-social take-off and landing noise, about which we all complain, Concorde will be quieter than either the Boeing 707–320C or the DC 8–50.
Some say that Concorde will somehow mysteriously damage the environment. The Americans have been flying supersonically for well over a quarter of a century. They have clocked up over 550,000 supersonic flight hours and done innumerable tests. Yet, no one has produced a shred of scientific evidence that there is any of this so-called ozone damage to the environment.
Smoke emission in the United States is an enormous problem. Concorde will be

the first aircraft virtually to eliminate smoke emission from the skies of the world. This is a great technological achievement. It is a positive boon towards the preservation of the environment.
I maintain that it is very much part of the Government's duty to sing the praises of our supersonic aircraft and to take great care to ensure that those who would misrepresent and damage the prospects for our industry through its supersonic transport developments are not allowed to get away with some of the irresponsible rubbish which we see from time to time in the Press, generally coming from Oxford, Cambridge or the London School of Economics, and certainly not from those who have any practical experience of business, industry, or the aircraft industry.
I am conscious that in a debate of this nature one must finish one's ramblings. Therefore, I finally ask my hon. Friend to consider the employment opportunities which the aircraft industry can provide in future for this country. It can provide satisfactory terms of work and potential for sales overseas and, with careful planning, it could solve today's unemployment by starting tomorrow's projects now.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I should like to begin my contribution to the debate, which is so welcome, by, somewhat unusually perhaps, declaring a near constituency non-interest in aviation. Very few of my constituents are employed in the aircraft industry. Those who are employed in it are mostly associated with the electronics industry or sub-contracting. Therefore, we have nearly a non-interest. However, all of us have that interest in hearing a little less about the industry as we are trying to sleep in our beds or are sitting in our gardens. We all have that great interest in the quiet aeroplane.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to go round to the Department of the Environment and, if he sees the Secretary of State, plant the idea that it would be very welcome to everybody if Foulness were phased out in favour of technical development of quieter aeroplanes.
I am neither employed in, nor do I own any part of, any company in the


industry, so I should like to comment briefly on the HS 748 Jetstream controversy. I understand that the Jetstream answers absolutely perfectly the specification which the Royal Air Force issued. It is the aeroplane which, if it is supported, can start on a new and successful life of selling overseas and, indeed, in this country. If it is not supported by a Royal Air Force order, I fear that production of the Jetstream is at an end, and that will mean the loss of 300 or 400 jobs that could be created at Scottish Aviation.
I think that Hawker Siddeley's constituency Members are right to push the interest of the 748, and of course, we understand that, but the choice should go to the Jetstream. I hope that those hon. Members who have pushed the 748 tonight will be there to push again if more orders come from the Hawker-Siddeley Nimrod, without worrying too much about the political colour of the country that might order it, so long as it is a Power friendly to Great Britain.
I am dispassionate in these matters, except that I know that the United Kingdom has only one real asset—its people and their skills. It is in the City and in advanced industries such as aerospace that those skills get the highest gearing in the business of converting low-cost materials into high-cost finished products.
I should like to refer briefly to the recently-published Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is our fifth. But first I would pay tribute to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee that produced the report, the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). It was a pleasure to me and everyone else concerned to work with him in producing the report.
I do not want to pre-empt all that will be said when we debate the report. I know that the Government will want to give time for a debate. But I would point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that the members of the Select Committee felt impelled to use a phrase which seemed to them to convey the flavour of successive Governments' policies in the space industry. It was:
Not so much a programme….
The rest we left to the imagination of my hon. Friend.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Members for Bristol, Central and Shored itch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) I went as far as Australia earlier this year looking for the Government's programme. We might just as well have been on the hunting of the Snark.
We know that my hon. Friend has followed the Select Committee's deliberations closely, but I will take the chance to press upon him certain of the matters considered. The first is the one to which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central has already referred, the paramount need for a single independent space agency. I do not believe that the present fragmented approach will ever end the decline in our industrial capacity in this field relative to other countries. We need a body other than the industry or the enthusiasts to seek out opportunities for the utilisation of space technology, if we want to sell our ability. We cannot be happy with a situation in which there is no body with the task of seeking chances for the industry to serve its principal customer, the Government, better and in ways that its principal customer has not even thought of yet.
Nor do we have any body suitable to recommend policy, for example, on possible United Kingdom participation in the post-Apollo programme and to see that the recommendation is carried out. The space shuttle will revolutionise the design of satellites and reduce their cost for given tasks and so enlarge man's capacity in space, and his capacity to launch manned or unmanned voyages of exploration, that no country such as ours, with a history of commerce and exploration, can dream of standing aside from that programme. If we do, we shall put ourselves in the position of being not just a small technological country but a smalltime technological country.
Many of the techniques that will be used in the shuttle are essential to the development of hypersonic aircraft beyond Concorde. We should be unwise to the edge of folly if we failed to exploit and extend Concorde techniques and to have a share in the technological fall-out that will be employed in hypersonic transports.
Nor, I would suggest, can the learning of the management discipline which N.A.S.A. and the American industry, demonstrated so frequently in the Apollo


programme, fail to benefit our industry if we join the project, and, indeed, if our space agency learnet from the Americans it might well teach some of what it learnt to some parts of the Government machine.
I touch briefly on one other facet of Government support, particularly tonight for the aerospace industry but to some extent for all industry and commerce. Support does not always have to be in the form of money and, of course, one has to put one's money where one's mouth is. Equally, the Government has to be willing to put its mouth where it has put its money. Thank God, in the past our Governments knew that. Supposing that, 200 years ago, we had had the type of Government we have had more recently. What would have happened to Greenwich Mean Time or the placing of the zero meridian? It would not have gone through Greenwich but would have wriggled through the United Nations and probably have ended up in the United States. Fortunately, it did not and the result is that it is one of the world's standards. That is Greenwich is where all maps and time start from.
Thirty years ago, we were using in the Royal Air Force Rebecca D.M.E., or Rebecca Eureka. Twenty years ago, I used it both in the R.A.F. and in airline flying. Then we gave it up. The Americans said that it was not a good standard aid and we agreed. Once we had given it up, they invented it. A little while ago, B.O.A.C. was carrying as an experiment the airborne radio teletypewriter. We backed it and gradually developed it. Then we abandoned it and forgot it. Given a little more time, the Americans are about to invent it, we shall accept it as another standard aid and they will produce it.
It does not cost much money to back in international conferences British industry, but it costs a hell of a lot of money not to do so. We did not back the Decca navigational aid. B.E.A. has equipped its aircraft with the Decca aid to come in and out of London Airport. What advantage does it get from it? Does it get special routeings which would put it ahead of non-Decca-equipped aircraft? Does it hell! It does not get the commercial advantage out of it that it should have. We have the same story, we sus-

pect, on the placing of contracts for the electronics of the M.R.C.A.
Many of us believe that we do not push our industrial interest hard enough in the conferences. We very nearly managed to do the same thing with Concorde itself. We very nearly managed to spend money and then not get any of the credit. So do not only let us try to exploit with money but with some of the ruthless commercial skill of the Americans and the political skill of the French, because the game is not to let others grow fat on our money—it is for us through our political skill to grow fat and prosperous on our own money.
Let the Treasury know that when we ask for support we do not only mean money in terms of launching aid. We mean support from the Government at every level through the Foreign Office in every conference on every standard aid, and that we should never give away a "quid" unless we get a "quo".

12.5 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: My contribution is in a sense schizophrenic because although I speak from the Front Bench I might as readily be speaking from a back bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) might well have made his speech from the Front Bench. That rather complicated explanation is by way of introduction to the fact that the subject I had originally intended to raise rather later in our proceedings has now been subsumed with this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised an important point about the proceedings in this debate when he asked whether it was right that any reversal should take place once a ballot has determined the order of our debates. It seems that this is a matter to be considered by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or by our Committee on Procedure.
It might be that we should ballot for the class and the number with a subject as a sub-title in the knowledge that our debates would be grouped by class and number, which seems nothing but good sense, and precedence would be determined in that way. I should not have thought of speaking at this stage had it not been clear that it would be for


the general convenience, bearing in mind that a number of hon. Members were perfectly entitled to speak on Concorde under this heading.
I welcome the debate introduced by my hon. Friend in what I thought was a studiously non-partisan speech. His concern was partly to emphasise the need for a full day's debate, I hope in Government time, to examine in greater detail the problems we have touched on tonight. I am sure that the response from both sides of the House at this late hour is an indication of how much there is to be discussed. The new White Paper on public expenditure, Command 4829, shows that we are likely to spend something like £850 million over the period covered by the White Paper on civil aerospace. In these circumstances it seems right that we should discuss it in the round and at greater length than is now possible.
I will not comment on the typically thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) dealing with his own Select Committee, to which the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) referred, nor do I intend to enter into the Hawker Siddeley Jetstream controversy. This is precisely the sort of matter for the Government of the day to solve and one which the Opposition are wise to keep out of. I am conscious that there is no clear view in industry or the House of what is the future of the industry. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) said, this is due largely to the open-ended commitment—I am not quarrelling with this—over Concorde and Rolls-Royce. Unless the Government are exceedingly careful we shall lose an important part of the time available to us, simply because the costs, being open-ended, have meant that a Government have not felt able to turn their mind to the development of other projects.
I should like to see Governments pursuing a far greater initiating rôle in aerospace than hitherto. I do not necessarily mean that they should embark on more projects. I take the view that there should be better financial control than there has been under any Government. It is right that Governments should get together with the industry and

try to look, in 1971, at the shape of the industry in the 1980s, what its size will be and what its structure ought to be, particularly in relation to the European industry.
My main concern is with certain aspects of Concorde, and I want to deal with this now. May I make clear what I am not questioning? I am not concerned with the wisdom of the original decision. We all know that initially it was thought that Concorde would cost between £150 million and £170 million to develop, until fully proven. We may all have doubts whether the estimates were carefully examined at the time or whether the priorities were right. We may also have doubts, and the hon. Member for Epping had something here, about whether the terms of the agreement with the French over Concorde were right. There are times in international relations for brutality short of war. Sometimes in our relations with the French I feel that we have not gone close enough to the brink, with the result that they have gained advantages which should have been ours. We can be tough and yet have a fair outcome. I am not concerned with such arrangements as may have been made. They were examined by the Estimates Committee in its Second Report as long ago as 1963.
Secondly, I am not concerned with the process of escalation under successive Governments. There has been an absence of ministerial and parliamentary control. Whatever we may think of Concorde, and although we may wish to see it succeed, our duty as parliamentarians is to recognise that it is right for Parliament to make conscious decisions and not be bounced into them.
The Public Accounts Committee, in its Fifth Report in 1966–67, said that the cost of Concorde was likely to be £500 million or rather higher. As we know from what the Secretary of State said last May, £885 million is the figure talked about now. But the Minister was candid in saying the other day that he would not commit himself to that figure. The total research and development costs will be over £1,000 million. I am not disputing that figure; I am saying that there are lessons for Parliament here which we, in our interests as well as those of the industry, should learn.
Thirdly, I want to say how much all of us who stood on the outside appreciate and respect the dedication of all those involved in the design, development and construction of Concorde. It is always a pleasure to see people who believe in what they are doing and gain great pleasure and satisfaction from it. They have every right to be proud of their achievement, and I pay my tribute to everybody concerned, from the most junior apprentice to Brian Trubshaw.
Fourthly, I do not doubt the importance of this aircraft to the aircraft industry and employment. The figure of 26,000 has been mentioned as being the number of those directly employed in building Concorde, and we know that there are many others. The consequences of any cancellation now, as at any other time in recent history, would be catastrophic.
Fifthly, I do not doubt the potential for supersonic travel or the passenger attraction of Concorde. All of us who have made long journeys round the world know the total monotony of travelling to, say, Australia or even across the Atlantic. Certainly Concorde will till the top end of the market, but it will be more successful in its initial stages in terms of passenger attraction than the Jumbos, which are white elephants in the present state of the airline market. I found Concorde to be a very pleasant plane from a passenger's point of view.
Finally, I entirely endorse the Government's decision to put all their weight behind Concorde. Whatever view one may have taken at any stage or may take about the history, if we are to go ahead with it, for heaven's sake do it in a businesslike way. What the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) said about marketing was right. If Concorde is on, let us put everything behind it and sell it to those who will buy it.
I am concerned with a different matter, and I hope that insofar as I have carried the House with me on these matters it will recognise that it has a right to know a great deal about he situation which we now envisage. The House has a right to know the selling price of Concorde and the factors and assumptions involved. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who, from his experience of the industry, complained of the actions of the Government. It

was enterprising of him, having complained from the outside, to get in and play his part. But my hon. Friend the Member for Newark made an important point. As far as public money is involved in the private sector, we may argue about how much should be involved and we may complain about stop-start policies of all Governments; but we have a responsibility for control which we cannot in any circumstances surrender. That is why I am concerned that the House should know about these matters now.
First, Concorde is our property. There is a vast public investment in it. It does not belong to B.A.C. or to the Government; it belongs to every taxpayer who has contributed and will contribute to it. Secondly, it is for the House of Commons, in its rôle as a check on the Executive, to esure that there are proper safeguards involved in whatever contracts are taken out.
Thirdly, there is the broader principle of parliamentary control, and, here again, there is a large measure of agreement on both sides of the House. I remember that when I was in Government and the Minister for Aerospace was in Opposition he often demanded more openness. I shared his view then, and I would like to believe that I played my part in ensuring more openness. He has been candid for the most part as long as he has been a Minister, and we have valued and respected that. This openness must continue. It is an important principle of parliamentary life. This should be so, and it is important that there should be on concealment.
Fourthly, there is the question, what is there to lose? I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies, if he finds it necessary to do so, he will explain precisely what can be lost if the information for which I am asking is made available. Sitting in a seat in a Department I was often told, "Minister, it would be better not to say." When I asked "Why?" I was told, "Well, there is commercial confidence involved." When I asked, "What do you mean by that?" then time and time again I did not get a satisfactory reply. I hope the Under-Secretary will not accept such advice. The fact is that the House of Commons should be told; there should be no unreasonable sheltering behind the argument of commercial confidentiality.

Mr. Adley: On this point of publicly announcing the price at this stage, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government have a responsibility, as he rightly said, to the taxpayer? This being so, might it not be vital to the securing of future orders that at this stage there should be confidentiality by those selling this piece of equipment should they, in their own best judgment, decide that it would be better not to emblazon the price across the pages of the newspapers—at the very beginning of selling of the product? At that time is there not a case for holding one's cards very close to the chest? I have myself been involved in the exporting business and in trying to sell a product for a large sum, and I know that there are many occasions when one does not want to lay out the price on the table for all to see.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that if the hon. Member reflects on what I shall be saying in a minute he may agree with me that the circumstances of this case are different from those of selling a product in a competitive atmosphere—if the hon. Member will follow what I am about to say; and perhaps we may hear from the Under-Secretary of State about it, too. I am arguing that commercial confidentiality is often used as a cloak, and I think that, in this case, despite what the hon. Member says, it should not be employed.
What are the determining factors in the selling price? The first is, presumably—and I simply run through them quickly, and the Under-Secretary will add or subtract as he thinks fit—the direct of cost of manufacture and production, and I will include the cost of marketing; second how much, if any, to be written off; thirdly, the length of the production line and, therefore, unit costs; fourth, financing of the production, with interest and purchasing charges; fifth, the question of spares; sixth, any other future development of Concorde.
I cannot see at the moment why these factors cannot be spelt out, and I will return to this in a moment. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury had an interesting, if slightly oblique, thing to say in the debate we had on 9th December on public expenditure when I had raised this question. He said:
I think he"—

meaning myself—
had a genuine point of principle when he talked about the method of handling public money invested in a concern such as that in the private sector with international implications and said that it ought to be looked into."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 1632.]
I am not sure exactly what that means, but I gather that was a sentence, if rather muddled, of good will, and if it is in fact the case that the Chief Secretary agrees with me on the principle which I set out in my speech on that occasion certainly I cannot see why the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should not be able to help us tonight. Quite clearly, somebody knows what the price is, and my complaint is that somebody knows but not the British House of Commons. There has been speculation for the last year on a figure of between 27 million and 31 million dollars —roughly speaking, between £11 million and £12½ million. On Friday last, the Financial Times discussed the possibility of a figure unlikely to be less than £12 million. Next, Aviation World, which is normally a fairly reliable source of information, printed on Monday this week a headline,
Concorde price set at £31·2 million dollars
and there was a substantial and convincing story.
Today, on the tape, we had some further information. At 12.38, we had the report on the tape,
Paris, Wednesday. The Anglo-French Concorde supersonic airliners will cost about £14 million, the head of French manufacturers of the plane announced today".
At 12.57, there came a correction saying that the figure was about £13 million.
That is where it rested until we saw the Evening Standard and read what Mr. Henri Ziegler had said. I read the same speech as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East read. I quote the Evening Standard report, dated Paris, today:
The president of Aerospatiale, the French partner in Concorde, today announced that the unit price of the jetliner would be £12½ million. Henri Ziegler said the price was based on dollar parities before today's first rush of fluctuation following the announcement yesterday by President Nixon that the dollar would be devalued in an overall realignment of world currencies.
Ziegler also told newsmen that the first six Concorde production aircraft are now guaranteed for delivery in October, 1974.


Prima facie, here is a case of the head of Aerospatiale telling news men in Paris what the Minister for Aerospace refused to tell the House of Commons last week.
Did Mr. Ziegler make that statement? If he did, is the figure correct? If the answer is "Yes", why did he give a figure to newsmen in Paris which has been denied to the House of Commons; and, in any case, what is the meaning of these strange proceedings? I cannot for a moment believe that the Under-Secretary of State will say that he does not quite know what happened. There is good telephonic communication between London and Paris, and I take it that he knows exactly what Mr. Ziegler said, and why he said it.
Either—I have to put it as strongly as this—there is contempt of Parliament by the Minister, in which case we should have a full explanation and apology, or there is contemptuous treatment of the British Government by our French partners on Concorde. I should prefer to believe that it was the second, but I wish I did not have to believe either. I should like to believe that the Minister would not deny to the House what was to be given to reporters in Paris today.
It is right that I should ask, and that the House should ask, for a firm figure. It is right that I should ask, and that the House should ask, for an unequivocal explanation of these extraordinary events. It is right that I should ask—and I am asking now—for some fuller explanation of the equation involved.
There are several factors here, and I shall give them briefly. First, I want to know about the assumption on total sales. Is it the 150 to 200 mentioned at the beginning, when the Public Accounts Committee was told that the selling price of Concorde would be £3 million to £4 million? If that is not the assumption in determining the unit price, what is the assumption: how many are expected to be sold?
Second, how much R. and D. is to be written off in the price? Mr. Ziegler, apparently, referred to a base price today, implying that there was no R. and D. content in the figure of £12½ million. If that is so, what is the Government's later intention? I am not arguing that any of the R. and D. should be written off. As I say, the Minister has been frank

in making clear to the House that we can have no high expectations. I simply ask for the facts.
Third, what guarantees are being given, or will be given, to the manufacturers if the actual unit cost exceeds the price agreed with the airlines? Who pays? Will the airlines be given a price subject to an escalation clause; or, if they are not given an escalation clause, will the British Government and the French Government provide some guarantee if the actual production cost exceeds the estimates?
Fourth, what about the amount of loans to manufacturers for production aircraft? The Under-Secretary will know Table 2.7 in White Paper Cmnd. 4829 which sets out the figures for trade, industry and employment over the period from 1970–71, for which we have a provisional out-turn, to 1975–76. It seems to me that a net figure of about £174 million has been set aside for loans for production aircraft. I may have misread this total and paragraph 10, and I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary will correct me if I have. Will he say whether this net figure is also a gross figure, or whether there is some element here for receipts from Concorde sales? If there are not receipts for Concorde sales included in the table, when do we expect the receipts to show? It would also help to know how many aircraft this loans figure covers, and what will be the rate of interest.
Fifth, I should like to know what formula has been agreed for spares. It is the normal practice, with which the House will be familiar, that aircraft manufacturers price down their aircraft and price up their spares. It would be interesting to know whether this has been done here. Again, it is an open custom well understood in the industry on which no question of commercial confidentiality can possibly arise. Any airline buying Concorde will surely do its own sums and will know exactly the sort of deal which has been made.
Sixth, will present option holders buy at a favourable price, and what will be the differential between the price for the first 74 and the price other airlines, or the same airlines, will pay for subsequent aircraft?
Seventh, is there to be any subsidy to B.O.A.C. or Air France to help them buy or operate? The Minister has made clear in the past that this was not his intention, and I hope that this will not be the case for a variety of reasons we all agree and understand. If there is to be no subsidy, will loans be made available to B.O.A.C., and at what rate?
What I am asking for is the full agreed formula for the sale of Concorde and the area still to be settled. I assume on the basis of what the Minister said, and what Mr. Ziegler said today, progress was made in Paris last week. How much progress, in what direction, and what is the gap still to be closed?
I have carefully reflected on the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol North-East about commercial considerations, but we must recognise that this aircraft is being sold in wholly unusual conditions. There is a single product and there is not a realistic competitor available to it. We know that the two airlines which will buy it are State airlines which have obligations also to the taxpayer. We know that there are special problems with any project in which two Governments are involved. This is an overwhelming reason why the House of Commons must know. It would be shameful if the House of Commons were to be denied information which is freely passing between others—the airlines, for example—or is being given to newsmen in Paris or elsewhere.
We want increasing openness in Government. It is the job of this Government and every other to reveal, not to conceal, and the more this is done the more the House of Commons will be able to debate these matters intelligently and the more likely it is that the aerospace industry will get a fair deal.

12.29 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Price): The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) opened the debate with a probing speech. His speech was followed by the speeches of nine other hon. Members who were equally in a probing mood. If I were to answer every one of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Newark, let alone all those of the other nine hon. Members, in the depth which their speeches entirely deserve, my speech

would be too long for the patience of the House. At least four separate speeches would have to be made, and I promise that I shall attempt only one.
I know that all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate will agree that the future of our aerospace industries will be, and inevitably must be, determined by international developments, present and future.
There are two factors of major significance which I believe will be determining for the future of our own industry. The first is the world recession in civil aerospace which is upon us. Airlines are suffering from over-capacity and low profitability; manufacturers who are coming to the end of established production lines are necessarily cautious as to the successor aircraft which should be developed; research and development costs for new aircraft continue to rise spectacularly. Technically impressive new products are experiencing great difficulty in establishing themselves as marketable ventures and manufacturers abroad are as concerned at the current downturn in the market as we are ourselves.
It is worth pointing out that the industrial giants of the American aircraft industry have suffered great financial difficulties and some have made enormous cut-backs. One of the results of this recession is that the nature and scale of the market for aerospace projects is being examined with even greater care by manufacturers before they will commit themselves to a new project.
Traditionally, the manufacturers of civil aircraft and aero-engines have, in their competition for the commercial prizes, striven mainly for size and speed. In the past the market has been prepared to pay for speed and size, which were the key qualities which the market sought. Today manufacturers can no longer take this situation for granted. As air travel has become more sophisticated, so the qualities for which passengers are prepared to pay are changing. We have moved beyond the pioneering age of making things fly safely and quickly. The concern now is with operating economics within a total transportation system. The brute fact is that, however technically attractive a project may be, if it is commercially a failure, it is the industry, its workpeople and the financial backers who will suffer—and the results may not take long to be felt.
I believe that the British aircraft industry has come to terms with the situation. I believe it is to be congratulated on its sense of responsibility in the restraint it is showing in undertaking thorough market research, instead of seeking to launch new projects for which market prospects are unproven.
However, this side of the picture should not be painted too black. The pause in the growth of air traffic will not continue for ever. I believe that over the next 10 to 15 years we shall see a continuing growth in the travel demand which will lead to markets for aerospace products in the 1980s far larger than the world has yet seen. Taking the long view, the present period brings us both the need and time to reshape the industry and its programmes to meet the challenges of the future.
This brings me to the second great consideration which will determine the future of the industry. This, of course, is the expected entry of the United Kingdom into the enlarged European Community. This factor was touched upon by the hon. Member for Newark. Since the Plowden Report in 1965, industry and Government alike have recognised the importance to the industry's future of ever closer cross-frontier links with European industry. The collaborative projects in which we are currently engaged have taken us some way down the road towards the goal of an integrated European industry. Very valuable lessons have been learned, but I think we need to move well beyond ad hoc collaboration on particular projects to some more permanent form of industrial association.
For the long-term future I believe we must think seriously of the possibilities of internationalised companies with, ideally, intergrated managements, finance and physical resources operated with optimum efficiency in our mutual interests. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) made very much the same point in relation to European space activities.
We can expect that with the strengthening of bonds with the Common Market countries which will follow our entry into the enlarged Community, the move towards industrial integration should receive a political and psychological boost. The

harmonisation of taxation systems, company law and administrative procedures which we hope will follow, should make the process both easier and more equitable than it has often been in the past.
The recent Anglo-French agreement on the selling price of Concorde is a clear sign that once the will is there all the technical problems of collaboration can be overcome, and a project which is technically a world leader can be successfully brought to the production, commercial and operational stages. None of us has any doubt that longer production lines, less duplication of expensive research and development and greater strength of industrial organisation are the means by which our industry could be competitive and profitable on a world scale. Closer co-operation is, I am sure, the key.
It is against this background that the Government's policy towards the industry is currently under review. I say this with greatest respect to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and one or two of my hon. Friends who say there have been too many reports on the industry. I put it to them that it is in this context that we are currently carrying out our internal review.
The present recession, although it is creating short-term difficulties which I would not for a moment minimise, gives the industry a chance to draw breath and prepare itself for the challenge of Europe. I would emphasise that the difficulties and shortage of new work have not been created by any deliberate policy of the Government. This Administration has secured, often in the face of considerable difficulties, the successful continuation of the three major projects currently being undertaken by the industry—Concorde, the M.R.C.A. and the RB211 engine. We do not overlook either the achievements and potential of the industry in economic and trading terms. We are convinced that in the long term there will continue to be a growing and important market for its products. The Government has always said that it remains ready and willing to put up launching aid for any appropriate civil projects which the industry may propose.
Looking ahead one sees obvious technological possibilities in such areas as quiet aircraft and radically improved field performance. On the latter, no one


who has any interest in aviation can fail to be excited by the various technical possibilities of variants of V/STOL. But here we must recognise that much more is involved than a vehicle, important and challenging though that undoubtedly is. This has come out clearly in our exchanges at question time. The effective application of really short or vertical takeoff techniques must be seen in the context of an entire transportation system and clearly this subject calls for careful study, not prejudiced by expecting too much too soon.
I know some of our major firms are experiencing difficulties now that established production runs will soon be ending and where there are no obvious successor projects. I sympathise with them and particularly with those who lose their jobs as a result of the pause in the aviation world. But I know they will understand that any action which government might take in these circumstances would need to have regard for the future prospects of the firm and its employees as well as for short term considerations.
To support the launching of a new project in the absence of clear market prospects cannot be the answer. The firm concerned would find a substantial proportion of its own resources tied up in a loss-making project, the cost of which the rest of the company would have to bear. The results could be disastrous, both to the firm and to its workpeople and they might not take long to be felt. No one would expect the aircraft industry to be free of risks. It is not in the nature of the business. But the risks must be assessed and weighed with fine commercial judgment.
The hon. Member for Newark, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), among others, asked about the state of employment in the industry. The facts are that employment in the industry has been declining slowly but continuously during the last decade or so. Now at some 225,000, it is about 25 per cent. below the 1961 total. I confirm roughly the figures given by the hon. Member for Newark for this year. Something of the

order of 2,500 fewer people are employed in the industry.
The hon. Member for Newark and many others asked what I thought the long-term employment prospects were. I cannot hazard a figure. It depends on future trends in the world market, which are singularly difficult to estimate for reasons that I have indicated already. I cannot do better than remind hon. Members of what the Plowden Committee said in its Report published in December, 1965:
The size of the industry should be a reflection of the amount of work it succeeds in obtaining. It is not possible to give an estimate of the likely future levels of employment.
Under this Government, as under the Government of our predecessors, it has remained true that the long-term employment level in the industry must depend mainly on its ability to win orders in the world market. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East supported that view.
Let there be no doubt that the present difficulties on the civil side of the industry derive largely from the world-wide recession affecting aerospace manufacturers and operators alike. Certainly they are not due to any change in Government policy. In their policies for granting launching aid to promising civil aerospace programmes, in the Concorde project and in our support for Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, the Government have given a large measure of support. It is worth reminding ourselves that, since 1960, Government assistance to the industry on the civil side in the form of launching aid, special grants, and the civil aerospace research programme has totalled over £1,000 million at 1971 prices. Currently, support is continuing to run at a level of about £100 million a year. All this is additional to the substantial defence expenditure in the industry, research, development and procurement currently running at over £300 million a year.
As I have said, the Government have declared themselves willing to examine carefully any new requests for launching aid which firms may put forward. Employment considerations as well as the technical, financial and commercial prospects of a project would be of importance in shaping the Government's judgment about whether assistance was merited.
But, in the last analysis, we must all realise that success can come only from building aircraft which are not only technically excellent but which can be sold in the world market.
The hon. Member for Newark referred to the Rothschild and Dainton Reports. They have been published as a Green Paper, of course. The contractor-customer relationship which is adumbrated in the Rothschild Report is well established in the aerospace business. One could argue that this is what the old Ministry of Aviation was all about.
A good deal of reference has been made to both the Nimrod and the Harrier. Both were praised by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, East and Bradford, West. They demanded further orders for the Nimrod and for the Harrier, especially for the naval version of the Harrier. These are essentially matters for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's strong views to his attention.
The question of a replacement for the Varsity was raised by the hon. Members for Newark and Manchester, Gorton. Again, this is entirely a matter for the Ministry of Defence. But the Government have declared in principle their willingness to place defence contracts to stimulate the economy. Equally, we must ensure that the help given is as effective as possible, not only in maintaining or increasing employment, but also in producing equipment which meets Service requirements. As it is not the responsibility of my Department, that is all that I can say, except that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that those who want to argue the case for the Hawker Siddeley answer to this particular requirement do not increase their case for the HS 748 by trying to knock Scottish Aviation.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) referred to the Select Committee report on United Kingdom space activities. We are studying it with great interest and shall reply in reasonable time. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central will know that I, as a former colleague of his on that admirable Select Committee, can promise him that

in so far as I have anything to do with it, there will be no unnecessary delay. I recall experiences in the past when he and I, sitting on that Committee, felt that Governments were not always as expeditious in replying to its admirable reports as we would have wished.
I come to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers). He has asked a number of very important questions about the selling price of Concorde. I will try to be as helpful as I can, but I doubt whether I shall be able to satisfy him and I shall be perfectly frank about this before coming to the points I want to make.
As the House knows, at the meeting in Paris on 7th December, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and M. Chamant, the French Minister of Transport, agreed the pricing policy to be adopted by the manufacturers in their negotiations with prospective customers for Concorde. This decision was based on proposals submitted by the four manufacturing firms, namely B.A.C. and Rolls-Royce in this country and S.N.I.A.S. and S.N.E.C.M.A. in France. Their proposals were made only after complex discussions between the four commercial partners. The next step is for the manufacturers to formulate their contract proposals within the guidelines now agreed by the two Governments. The actual price at which Concorde will be sold will depend upon the outcome of these further negotiations between the manufacturers and airlines.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked some very telling questions relating to the premises upon which our two Governments arrived at their pricing policy. In spite of the case he deployed, I am afraid that I cannot reveal to the House either the premises or the formula. With complete sincerity, I say that I will pass back the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend; but I am not in a position to answer this question. I assure the House that my inability to reveal this information arises out of no discourtesy to the House but rather out of a desire to see the project succeed.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace said, in answer to a supplementary question from the right hon.


Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) as recently as 8th December:
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are about to embark on commercial negotiations in which it will be in no one's interest to announce those figures."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 1303.]
That is why I believe that it would be entirely counter-productive for me to speculate upon the basic selling price in advance of the negotiations which the manufacturers are having with the airlines. It is for these reasons that M. Chamant and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace agreed that it would be contrary to the joint interests of the two Governments supporting the programme to make any disclosures which might inhibit the manufacturers in gaining a fair price for the aircraft.

Mr. William Rodgers: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify this matter? Is he saying that these figures cannot be given now because there must be further discussions between the manufacturers, which would leave open the question whether he would give us the figures later, or is he saying that we shall not know the figures even when the airlines know them? I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be an intolerable situation if the Chairman of B.O.A.C. had knowledge of figures which was still being denied to this House. Is the hon. Gentleman pleading delay or an absolute requirement that the House of Commons will not be told even when it is common knowledge?

Mr. Price: I do not think there is as much between us as the hon. Gentleman may think. We have been talking about base prices, but in fact no one price is applicable to each potential contract. There cannot be one price in the way that ordinary products are priced. According to the needs of each customer airline, there will be variations in the aircraft, and some of the factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred, such as guarantees, will vary from one airline to another.
In other words, the fact that there might be a price for one airline does not mean that that price will apply precisely in the same terms to another because these contracts are complex, particularly when

the whole question of guarantees is involved.
I come to the questions of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees about what one might call the parameters within which these prices can be negotiated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will talk tomorrow with my right hon. Friend to see if it is possible—I can say no more than this now—at a suitable moment for more information to be given, but I emphasise that in the recent agreement between my right hon. Friend and M. Chamant, it was agreed that these matters would not be currently disclosed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a reported statement today by General Ziegler that the price of Concorde would be £12½ million. In fact, the report I saw on the tape was £13 million. But I utter a word of caution. Too much should not be read into this report in view of what I have said about there not being one price. The eventual price to any airline will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, and they will have to take into account a number of factors including, for example, special modifications or additions that may be required by the airline for its particular use of Concorde. It would, therefore, be wrong to prejudice the outcome of the negotiations by commenting on the possible selling price.

Mr. William Rodgers: Is the Minister saying that General Ziegler spoke out of turn and without authority?

Mr. Price: I do not know. The hon. Gentleman seems to know more than I do about the precise circumstances in which General Ziegler was alleged to have been speaking. I have only seen the reports which appeared on the tape earlier this afternoon. I have done my best to have inquiries instituted, and I confess that at the point when I entered the Chamber, nothing new had reached me. I therefore have not been able to clarify the circumstances under which General Ziegler made these reported remarks.
Hon. Members will see that I am at a disadvantage in this matter. If anything had been made official, I should have thought it would have been disclosed to hon. Members before being disclosed to the Press at large. Certainly it is normal, when information of this nature is being given to the Press, for it to be given to the House at least at the same time.

Mr. Bishop: I do not want to accuse the Minister of talking nonsense about the pricing of Concorde, except to assure him that everybody knows that for a run of aircraft the price is bound to vary according to the requirements of the customer. When we have spoken about aircraft in the past—for example, about the F111—we have known the figure in round terms. Surely the same figure, allowing for variations, could be given in this case. Or is the Minister saying that if my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees puts on a different hat and says that he is a potential customer for Concorde he will be given the price, whereas if he says he is an M.P. he will be told to mind his own business because it is not his concern?

Mr. Price: I do not think that it is as simple as that. These are not just very minor variations. As I understand it, some potential customers may want quite considerable modifications for their machines. Particularly when one comes to the whole question of guarantees this factor is by no means unimportant, because, obviously, the tougher the guarantees that have to be given by the manufacturers the higher the prices they will try to negotiate.
If I were in the position of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees I would have said many of the things he said, but I am in no position tonight to help him or the House any further. But he knows me well enough, and I assure him that I shall, at the earliest opportunity tomorrow, talk to my right hon. Friend and give him a full account of what has taken place, and I hope that he will be able to review the matter.
I am trying to adhere to my right hon. Friend's undertaking to M. Chamant that, for the time being, no further information should be given on these matters. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that whatever has happened I certainly do not know the details, and until I do I should at least honour my right hon. Friend's undertaking.
I am conscious of having spoken for a very long time. I say in conclusion that since its inception Concorde has been a most challenging and exciting project. I can assure both my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and the House as a whole that

we in the Government intend to give every possible backing and support to the manufacturers in this important task, because we are convinced that the supersonic market represents a new dimension in transportation, and that Concorde will fill it admirably.

METROPOLITAN POLICE

12.58 a.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: From the great potential and hopes of Concorde it is my distasteful task now to bring the House back to what is without doubt a very sordid and disgraceful episode in our national life. There is today in London a network of spies and informers operating under the directions of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
There are citizens and residents in the United Kingdom who are conforming to the laws of this country but who are under surveillance by agents acting on behalf of a foreign Power. There are legal, law-abiding, peaceful organisations operating in this country which have been infiltrated by spies and informers, and there are premises occupied by these legal and peaceful organisations which have been broken into and from which documents have been stolen.
Over the last few months, in conjunction with a number of my hon. Friends, I have been investigating some of these activities, and I have seen and spoken to men and women who live in an atmosphere of fear. They are fearful that their 'phones may be bugged. They are fearful that they may be subjected to bugging in their own premises. They are fearful that they are being watched and are being followed by agents acting on behalf of South Africa. But above those fears, the people whom I have seen and with whom I have spoken have the fear that they cannot go to our police to ask for protection, because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that in this country we are co-operating with the security services of the South African Government. These fears may not be fully justified—I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance on this point—but they are real for the people I have seen.
One of the purposes of this debate is to give the Home Office the opportunity to


give a clear statement to all those who are here as refugees from South Africa that they are entitled to the full protection of the law in this country against those who are interfering with their liberties. There are many South Africans, black, white and coloured, and no doubt other people as well in this country who have been approached by agents in the pay of the South African Government. I want to give the House some examples of the methods which have been used by these agents on these innocent people in an attempt to get them to undertake activities in which they would rather not participate.
The classic example is an approach to a former South African citizen living here with a message from a friend or relative back in South Africa. A meeting is arranged to pass on this message and once the contact has been made gentle pressures are applied to turn the person concerned into an informer. It is done on the basis that, by making this contact, it has been possible to demonstrate that the long hand of the Bureau of State Security can even reach out to this country and touch these people.
Another method is to promise a review of the no-return passports that many of these South African citizens hold. They are also promised that, if they will act as informers and their co-operation is fruitful, there will be a well-paid job back in South Africa for them.
There have been extensive inquiries into many of these leads that have come into our possession—inquiries not only by hon. Members but by the Press and television. I pay tribute to the many fine and brave journalists whom I have met who have worked on these inquiries, in particular to the Observer newspaper for the part that it has played in exposing these malpractices.
This evening, on the B.B.C. programme "24 Hours", there was a full deployment of the researches that the B.B.C. had undertaken into this business. It was a very fine programme and I am sure that the House will feel indebted to those responsible for it and for the detailed research involved.
It has been clearly established that a spy ring exists and that the name of one

of the men who organised it on behalf of the South African Government is known. It is a spy ring that operates from the South African Embassy in London, which has had British citizens acting as controllers, which has established a network of informers and which has infiltrated organisations in this country hostile to the régime in South Africa. There is one British citizen in particular, an ex-member of the British South African Police, who returned to this country under orders to set up this network. His name is John Fairer Smith, and his activities have extended to political, commercial and economic espionage. He is the man who recruited and, for some time, controlled Norman Henry Blackburn, the spy who was convicted and sentenced in 1967 to five years imprisonment for his part in stealing Cabinet papers dealing with Rhodesian sanctions.
Blackburn has been interviewed during this month and has confessed that he organised infiltrators into organisations in this country and kept surveillance on people in this country on behalf of John Fairer Smith who was acting for the South African Government.
I should like to make one or two quotations from statements which have been made by Mr. Blackburn. He said:
I infiltrated organisations such as the A.N.C., Z.A.P.U. and S.W.A.P.O. I forget the names, but most of these kinds of organisations—Amnesty International, Anti-Apartheid. I had people in them working for me.…
I did not pay them myself. They would go and collect the money. Fairer Smith did that side of things. He would arrange for them to be paid.
Dealing with the carrying out of surveillance of people in this country, Blackburn goes on:
I carried out surveillance on individuals personally. It was very boring actually. You would keep watch on them for a while, which hotel they were staying in, try to get in with the receptionist, sit in the bar and try and meet them. You can always start a conversation with someone in a bar. That is as good a place as any. It starts off with the weather. The usual procedure was to drop a hint that I was sympathetic towards African nationalism.
He then deals with his activities in recruiting informers:
Before we recruited people to help informing for us we checked up on them first to see if they liked girls, what sort of life they led. If they led a fast life they would need money. Sometimes it would take weeks to check up on them. Following and following. I would


find out where they were drinking and then drink at the same place. Sooner or later the chance would come for a talk.
He goes on again to incriminate John Fairer Smith, because he says:
Fairer Smith always told me where (which organisation) to go to (for spying). I did not work on my own initiative. He would tell me he wants somebody in there, somebody has left. I used to act on my own initiative (in other ways) if I saw something interesting.
The activities of this man, Fairer Smith, were not just confined to political espionage, because, having survived the Cabinet papers scandal, he set up a company to run other spying activities in this country. In August, 1968, he registered a company called Argen (Information Services) Ltd., later to have its name changed to Argen (Business Consultants) Ltd. He has been closely involved in political, economic and commercial espionage, and has an espionage network which stretches out into Europe. His activities have involved the operation of the I.O.S., Gramco and the Real Estate Fund of America.
All these activities are surely worthy of a full-scale investigation by the Home Office. I believe that the Minister tonight needs to give a clear undertaking that he will cause an investigation to take place into the activities of this man in his political, economic and commercial espionage.
I turn briefly to the involvement of the South African Embassy in London in all this. I believe, and the documents that I have bear this out, that South African diplomats have been involved in the spying. There is evidence that Blackburn's controller at the time of the theft of the Cabinet papers was a South African diplomat. That is certainly Blackburn's claim. In the part of his statement dealing with that he refers to the period just before his arrest and says:
I was working with someone directly at South Africa House…. I never went to South Africa House or Rhodesia House. I made my contacts with the officials at South Africa House in this way: every month we would arrange for me to meet the next month, and if it was urgent I had a number to ring. He"—
that is his contact—
was after the same kind of information.
So there is clear, positive evidence on the statements by Blackburn implicating Fairer Smith and the South African Embassy in London.
I turn next to the strange case of Keith Wallis, a known South African agent who was found dead at the foot of a ventilation well early in 1970. The coroner's verdict was that it was accidental death. There are people who still feel uneasy about that verdict. They speak—and again it is recorded in the documents that I have—of missing property, a gun, a camera, a tape recorder, of passes that he carried and of signs of disturbance in his flat immediately it was opened after the finding of his body. The suggestion has been made that
The police dropped this inquiry like a hot potato after contacting South Africa House.
I do not want to overstress the Wallis affair, and I make no comment on it other than to ask the Minister whether he will undertake to review the evidence in the matter so that those of Wallis's friends and acquaintances who still have doubts in their minds about the circumstances of his death can be reassured.
I realise that there is a necessary reluctance to discuss matters involving the interests of our own national security or our own security forces, and the difficulty the Minister faces in replying to a debate like this. But I am satisfied, and I am sure that the House will be satisfied, that the activities of men like John Fairer Smith and the South African secret police in this country are of sufficient public concern to be raised in an open manner in the House. On 11th November I asked the Home Secretary
…if he is satisfied that no officer of the Metropolitan Police has given assistance to agents of the South African Government engaged in the surveillance of residents of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
The reply was:
Any such assistance would be contrary to instructions. Liaison between the Metropolitan Police and the South African authorities is limited to criminal matters and the protection of individuals and property."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 222]
I want the Minister to clarify that answer when he replies. Which individuals are really entitled to protection by British Police—the spies, or those who have been spied upon? I know that the answer of the House will be that it is those who have been spied upon by the agents of a foreign Power who are entitled to the protection of our police. Whose property is entitled to protection?


Surely, the answer must be that it is the property of lawful organisations such as the Anti-Apartheid Movement, the Society of Friends and the Young Liberals, all of whose premises in recent months have been subjected to break-ins and the theft of documents.
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman spell out clearly, when the Home Office refers to criminal matters as being the basis upon which this liaison can take place, just what it means by "criminal matters"? Is it referring to those things which are criminal under the laws of this country, passed by this Parliament? Or is it referring to the laws of the Republic of South Africa? Everyone knows that it is almost a crime to be a Christian in South Africa. We want it spelt out clearly just what is meant by "criminal matters". I believe the evidence is strong, and I am prepared to make available to the Home Secretary the evidence that I have, so that he can cause the necessary inquiries to begin. I will make it available subject only to the pledge I have given to some of the people I have interviewed—that in no circumstances will I disclose their names. That was the condition upon which they came forward and spoke to me.
The activities here of people like Fairer Smith and by the Bureau of State Security must come to an end. They are unacceptable in this country and I think the House will join with me in calling upon the Minister to set up a full inquiry so that these practices can be exposed and stopped.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will forgive me if I do not follow exactly the points he has raised but deal with one or two other aspects of the Metropolitan Police.
When we tot up the costs of the Metropolitan Police, we usually talk about the costs of the C.I.D., of traffic and of patrols. I draw attention to another cost —the growing cost to the police involved in the handling of complaints by the public. This is now, I believe, tying up an increasing number of policemen to an extent that the matter is becoming one of real concern.
It is important to be clear about this question at the beginning. No one wants genuine complaints to be dealt with in any other than a full and fair manner. It is fundamental to a police force in a democracy that such fair and full investigation of serious complaints by the public against the police should be made. It is fundamental because all policing depends upon the general consent of the public—in other words, the public must have confidence that serious complaints will be dealt with impartially and mistakes will be corrected. That is why I welcome the new system of handling complaints which the Home Secretary announced in a reply to a Question from me on 2nd December and which partly and in a very important detail concerns the Metropolitan Police.
I think this proposal, which has not been given full recognition yet by the public and the Press, marks important changes in the system of handling complaints. First, it means that in future the Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to ask for more inquiries to be made in cases involving a possible prosecution; secondly, they mean that, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, serious complaints will now be investigated by officers from outside forces. These are genuine and important advances in the system of handling complaints and I believe they meet legitimate criticism which had been made previously of the old system.
The public must consider whether there is something it can do in return. We have to ask whether the time and money spent in investigating complaints is necessary. We complain too much about our police forces. It is difficult to come to any other conclusion after looking at the figures. According to the report of the Commissioner last year 3,500 members of the public made complaints against the Metropolitan Police, only 200 of which were ever substantiated. Almost 95 per cent. of complaints were unproved. London is not alone. In the rest of England and Wales, of 7,400 complaints only 900 were substantiated, leaving 90 per cent. unproved. I do not claim that in some of these unsubstantiated complaints there was not a genuine sense of grievance. Undoubtedly some were justified in making complaints but in that total there were some which should never have been made. Some have been made


maliciously, some in the hope that the police would be deterred from bringing proceedings. Far too many are by any definition, purely trivial—allegations of a policeman smoking on duty or of minor incivility. This sounds trivial and it is, yet it takes up the time of the police and costs money to investigate. Every complaint has to be investigated and in those cases everyone's time is wasted.
We expect a good deal from our police force, perhaps too much at times. The police are sorely pressed and their basic task must be, as it has always been, to detect crime and preserve public order. Trivial, unjustified complaints hinder that process. There must never be any question of the serious complainant being prevented from voicing his objections, but the trivial complaint devalues the currency. It would be no bad rule that everyone considering making a complaint against the police should ask themselves whether the complaint is necessary.
It is remarkable how undocumented is the pattern of crime in Britain. The experience and example of the Metropolitan Police is an important indication of what can be done to correct that situation. Most of us deplore the growth of crime in London and elsewhere, but it is remarkable how sparse are the figures about this. This is not an academic point, because it determines our attitudes and policies. It allows generalisations to be made of the kind showing that the increase in crime we have seen in the last 20 years is mainly accounted for by the fact that there has been a steep rise in trivial crime. Recent research at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology shows that the increase in crime has not arisen from an increase in trivial crime so much as from a more than average increase in the number of serious crimes, such as robbery. The research done by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology also shows that crime outside London has been increasing at a faster rate than in the capital. The Metropolitan Police have a very serious problem to deal with, but we should not assume that only they have to deal with it.
The fact that generalisations which under-estimate the increase in crime can be made shows the pathetic inadequacy of the statistics on crime. One gap in particular concerns the cost of crime.

It is almost unbelievable, but there are no official figures available which show the financial cost to this country caused by crime. We confidently spend millions of pounds each year on fighting crime with only the sketchiest idea of the scale of financial loss we are dealing with.
I give one example taken from the Annual Report of the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. Robbery has increased dramatically in the last 10 or 20 years. It has become a major problem in a city like London. It is regarded as a crime of great seriousness because it carries with it the element of violence. Yet all to few forces tell us the cost of robbery. The Metropolitan Police is a very honourable exception, because it tells us that last year the value of cash and property stolen in the Metropolitan Police area amounted to £2,800,000, of which only £250,000 was recovered.
It might be considered relevant in our policies on the police and how we deploy the police and combat crime to understand that in London last year the robbers made a tax-free "killing" of just over £2½ million. But if we ask for the corresponding figure for the rest of England and Wales, as I have asked, we are told that this information is not available.
I end with this plea. Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State say whether steps can be taken to remedy the very serious gap in our knowledge of this very important matter? If steps are being taken, what are they and when may we expect the results of them?

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he has given only one example of many differences of practice between the Metropolitan Police and the police forces in the provinces? Even on such basic matters as the practice of fingerprinting and photographing those charged with offences, there is a completely different practice as between London and areas outside London. Crime, which is a national problem, is being combated on a different basis as between London and the provinces.

Mr. Fowler: There is a great deal of truth in that. I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but if he will excuse me I will confine myself to the question of the gathering of information. We must have certain basic information


if we are to put forward policies to tackle the situation. I have confined myself to robbery because that is perhaps one of the more dramatic examples, but one can make the point that robbery is not the only example. The Metropolitan Commissioner in his Annual Report also tells us the value of property stolen otherwise —in burglaries. Again, I would suspect that if one were to ask what our comparable national figures are one would not be given any answer, because that information is not available. So we have the extraordinary situation that it is left to private organisations such as the Security Gazette and the British Insurance Association, for example, to make noble attempts to try to fill the gap in information and to give us some estimate of what the cost of crime in this country actually is.
All I am saying is that crime is often, perhaps too often, dealt with in an emotive way, and what I am asking for is basic information upon which we can judge how serious the situation is. All the evidence has been to the effect that that situation is very serious, that the situation has grown rapidly worse throughout the 1960s, and that it has been serious crime—or crime which the hon. Gentleman and I would find no difficulty in defining as serious—which has increased most.
What I am asking the Government to do is to treat the question of crime as serious—I know they do already—and to follow this policy through and to collect the kind of information which would be useful not only to them in formulating their policies but to us so that we can have intelligent and informed discussion on how we can tackle crime and what priorities the police forces should have.
In conclusion, I would ask my hon. Friend now to tell the House what action is being taken in this field. If no action is being taken, I would urge the Home Department to follow the excellent example already being set by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I wish to make one or two observations on the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) before coming to the main ob-

ject of my speech. In so far as he has argued that there is a woeful lack of research into so many aspects of crime I am entirely at one with him.
As for his arguments concerning complaints about the police and the machinery being applied for investigating the complaints, I am afraid that I cannot share what I regret to say appeared to me to be a somewhat complacent view of the position. It is very difficult to sift out the trivial and the unjustified from the serious. What may to the police be trivial and unjustified may not be trivial and unjustified to the complainant. Therefore, if we are to retain a substantial measure of confidence between the public at large and the police we must be very concerned indeed that a person who feels he has a justified complaint can in fact air it. I know it is true that there is a large number of trivial complaints, and a number of malicious complaints, but how, without carrying out some form of inquiry, can we determine which are the true and which are the false? I do not believe that the machinery which the Home Secretary announced the other day is as satisfactory as the hon. Gentleman has sought to suggest. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said on that occasion, it still retains a situation where the police are judges in their own cause, and a number of us are not satisfied with that position.
However, I do not propose to enlarge further on that because I want to refer—

Mr. Fowler: rose—

Mr. Davis: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for not giving way. I really wish not to detain the House unduly long.
I want now to refer to the enormously valuable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). The House and the country will be indebted to him for the disclosures which he has made tonight, and for the help he has given to the mass media in revealing the sordid and squalid state of affairs which he described.
My hon. Friend presented a detailed factual analysis which, at the very least, raises a powerful prima facie case deserving—indeed, demanding—a full-scale


inquiry. He has depicted a frightening story, with evidence of intimidation, of harassment, of corruption, of theft, and worse, exercised by the South African security forces, not in South Africa but in this country, against people who have sought sanctuary here from oppression in South Africa.
The allegations show a certain forbearance on the part of the Metropolitan Police in carrying out inquiries and in dealing with the alleged outrages. Why have the police in London taken no action? Did they not have the information, information which the mass media had, and which my hon. Friend had? Why did it not come to their notice, or, if it did, why did they do nothing about it? These are pertinent questions, and I am sure that the Minister of State will deal with them and not evade them, for evasion on a matter of this kind would be no service to democracy and justice in this country.
The people who are the subject of these alleged outrages are liberals, in the main, people who have come to this country believing that it is a sanctuary from South Africa. Of course, they would be described as Communists by the South African Government. I suppose that that Government would describe even the Minister of State as a Communist; they are capable of almost anything.
What causes a number of us great anxiety is that it has been conceded by the Home Secretary that there is a good deal of liaison between the police of this country and the South African police. My hon. Friend drew attention to the Home Secretary's Written Answer on 11th November. It was not that he referred to the South African police; he referred to the South African authorities. What did he mean by "authorities"? Does that term include the security forces of South Africa? What was meant by "criminal matters"? To which law, South African or British, do we look for a definition of crime in that context? So one could go on. My hon. Friend raised many points in that connection, and I need do no more than underline them.
What is particularly frightening—there is further evidence of this to which my hon. Friend did not refer—is that a good deal of the evidence against people who have been prosecuted in South Africa—perhaps "persecuted" would be more

appropriate—seems to have been garnered in London. The Dean of Johannesburg himself said, referring to the visit of two British police women at his trial, that it indicated co-operation between the British police and the South African police, and he thought that it was far too close. Why were they there at all? How would they benefit from their attendance at the trial? If there is a degree of liaison and co-operation in the study of criminal methods, why do we have to liaise with the South Africans of all people? We know only too well the way in which the South African police operate. We know the sort of tortures they use and how they get confessions. What have we to learn from them? Do we liaise with the Russian secret police? Of course we do not. Why should we liaise with the fascist police of South Africa?
I turn to another practice which has caused me and some of my hon. Friends anxiety, and that is the practice which seems to be developing of illicit leaks to the Press by the police of certain investigations that they are making. It is a monstrous injustice that, when a man is detained so that inquiries can be made, there should be a leak to the Press of the identity of that person or of the nature of the inquiries until a charge is preferred. The Minister of State will know to what I am alluding. Grave damage can be done to the character of a person who may be impugned quite wrongly. There can be only one explanation of how the Press manage to get information of this kind and that is by leaks from the police.
If, for example, a man of some fame is detained, no doubt a journalist gets on to the police station and asks, "Is there any news tonight?" That information is disclosed to him, because it is a story. One cannot blame the journalist; it is his job to ferret out information; but I do blame the police if they are implicated in that sort of situation.

Mr. Fowler: I do not know the details, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious allegation against policemen. I should have thought that everyone would know what he is talking about. Has he any evidence to substantiate the charge he is making?

Mr. Davis: I am making a demand for an inquiry.

Mr. Fowler: On what evidence?

Mr. Davis: It is indirect evidence. Of course, it must be indirect evidence. If a man is detained for inquiries to be made at the police station, nobody would know about it except the police force and the man concerned, and no one would know the nature of the inquiries. Who, then, would have imparted the information to the Press?

Mr. Fowler: One obvious answer to that is that someone else involved in the accident or incident might think it was worth while to ring up the Press.

Mr. Davis: That could not have been the case in the circumstances to which I am alluding. What happened took place, as it frequently does, within the confines of the police station. I demand an explanation for this activity and I ask for an inquiry. This is an improper practice, if it exists, and I hope that the Minister of State will take this matter seriously.
I have to some degree made complaints about the police, but I do not want it to be thought that, whenever one makes complaints or demands an inquiry, one necessarily has a dreadful idea of the police. Indeed the reverse is the case so far as I am concerned. It is my experience, both in my professional job and as a Member of Parliament, that we are very fortunate indeed in our Metropolitan Police. Naturally, there are bad police officers, just as there are bad doctors, bad solicitors, and even bad Members of Parliament. And it is right that when they are found not to be doing their duty, they should be exposed. But if one makes allegations which are deserving of inquiry that does not mean to say one holds the whole police force in contempt.
I wish to turn to the subject of race relations, which is becoming an important function of the Metropolitan Police. It is a vital requirement that they should be increasingly involved in this problem, since it affects the immigrant community and the children of those who came here some years ago. In my constituency we have achieved remarkable results. There is a close liaison, as the Minister of State well knows, between the police and the immigrant community in Hackney, and it has been achieved as a result of hard work by the

police, the local authority, the Community Relations Council and its officers. But I am not satisfied that this situation prevails throughout the whole of the metropolis. There can be no doubt that this is one of the most vital areas for further work and research by the police.
It is recognised by the police that there is considerable suspicion in the immigrant community of the police and vice versa. It is no use turning a blind eye to this problem. It exists. Unless we are able to cause this situation to become eroded, we are in grave danger of racial difficulties in the future—immensely more difficult than they are at the moment. We have to establish that the police and all those involved in the administration of the law—whether they be magistrates, judges, solicitors and barristers—are fair and are seen to be fair and are taking a direct interest in the problems of the immigrant community.
The Police Federation is to be complimented on its work in this direction. It has carried out important studies into race relations problems. But one of the serious handicaps that has to be faced is that there is an inadequate number of coloured police officers being recruited to the Metropolitan Police and to other police forces. It is often said one has to maintain standards—and of course, that is true, particularly in regard to the police force—but it should not be harder for a coloured boy to be admitted to the police force than it is for a white boy. It is a sad fact that in London we have only a handful of coloured policemen. I know that the Minister of State is concerned about this.
Why do we have this situation? It is true there is a misguided conception among a number of immigrants that if one joins the police, one is siding with the enemy as a sort of Uncle Tom. I do not believe this is the view of the overwhelming majority of the immigrant community, but it is a view that is expressed from time to time, and this presents a difficulty. It is also true that competition from better paid and less demanding work is a deterrent to recruitment to the police. Police officers have to work long hours and over weekends and enormous burdens are imposed on them. The inescapable conclusion is


that not sufficient is being done to dispel these illusions and to recruit suitable people from the immigrant community to the police forces. I am not satisfied that equal standards are applied. It would certainly appear easier for a white boy to enter the police force than for a coloured boy in certain instances.
The Police Federation is right to say that coloured police officers should not work predominantly in coloured areas, but once they are recruited in much greater numbers than is happening today one will establish a greater feeling of confidence in the immigrant community about the police—and this is extremely important. I should like to pay a tribute to the working party on the training of police in race relations. Its work has been of immense value. From the very first a police officer should be instructed about the background, ethnic and religious, of those with whom he will be working. The training must not end after the probationary period has been concluded. We must take account of the changing patterns of society. There must, therefore, be a continuous process of education.
Many police officers take every opportunity to meet and to socialise with the immigrant community. But it must be a dialogue. We sometimes make complaints about the inadequacies of the police in this. But the Police Federation has pointed out two very salient factors. Unless the community as a whole makes a determined effort to ensure that there is equality of job opportunity and of advancement, unless the community as a whole ensures better housing conditions in the deprived areas, particularly London, whatever they can do to effect better relations will come to nought.
So it is not simply the responsibility of the police of the Community Relations Councils. It is the responsibility of Parliament and the whole country. If we do not realise this we are going to face a most serious problem in the future.

1.52 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): There are few who would disagree with the constructive words with which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) concluded his speech. But perhaps I might turn first to the speech of the

hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. James Wellbeloved). He was good enough to let me know beforehand of the subject he intended to raise, and I am most grateful to him. Because of the lateness of the hour I had the opportunity to watch the television programme "24 Hours" and I had some idea of what he was going to say.
I am sure he understands that the matters which he has raised fall partially in the sphere of security and partially in the sphere of what might be described as criminal activities. He appreciates, as he was good enough to say, that security matters, as the Prime Minister pointed out, are not discussed in this country in public. I have no intention of discussing the security aspects this evening.
Criminal matters are dealt with by the police and by the courts under the criminal law, and it is the duty of the police to enforce the law, irrespective of those concerned. I have every confidence in the police that they carry out their duty with absolute impartiality in matters of this kind.
It is the duty of members of the public —and that includes Members of Parliament in their public capacities—to pass on information which may come their way, whether it be information of a security character or information which should be passed on to the police in respect of criminal matters. In respect of criminal matters, there is an obligation on those who make allegations to be prepared to come forward themselves and to give evidence in the courts of law. Unless that is done and evidence is presented upon which the police are able to take action, it is not possible for cases to be brought before the courts.
The hon. Gentleman raised matters on Questions which have been answered earlier in this House about liaison with the South African police forces. I can repeat the assurance which has been given before that the liaison between our police and the South African authorities is limited to criminal matters and the protection of individuals and property. I emphasise that by "criminal matters", I mean criminal matters as we understand them in this country. The police have a duty, of course, to protect embassies and all foreign nationals who may be in our country.
As for the criminal law, perhaps it would be helpful if I gave the House one example of what I mean by co-operation. I am sure that hon. Members will recall the co-operation and valuable assistance given by the South African police in the successful conclusion of the Richardson case. It is essential that there should be co-operation between all police forces on matters of that kind. But the position is exactly as described by my right hon. Friend in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 11th November.
I turn now to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler)—

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, is he now arguing, in saying that he has completed all that he intends to say this evening in reply to the profoundly important case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), that at no time is it possible or has it been possible in the past for hon. Members to raise matters concerning the infiltration of the agents of a foreign Power into lawfully established organisations in this country? The issue in such a case is not the security of the country. Is the hon. Gentleman propounding the extraordinary doctrine that hon. Members can never ask questions on such matters?

Mr. Sharples: I am propounding the doctrine which was well understood by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. It is clearly understood, and has been by successive Governments, that matters affecting security are not discussed in public and are not discussed in this House.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase "security matters" several times. Will he tell us precisely what he means by "security matters", which he urges should not be discussed in this House?

Mr. Sharples: I am referring to matters raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford which, if they were proved, presumably would come within the realm of the criminal law. It is well understood that these matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised come within the realm of the security of the State. That is per-

fectly well understood in the House, and I do not intend to add to or subtract a word of what I have said on that.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is a very important matter. The Minister has told the House that there has been no co-operation and that there will be no co-operation between the police in this country, at an official level, with the South African police, save in relation to matters which are criminal matters under our law. Is he satisfied that there have been no infiltrations of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and that there were no liaisons on a personal and individual level? Has this matter been fully investigated by the Home Office? Is the Minister saying that there is no substance in the allegations made in the Observer?

Mr. Sharples: What I am saying is that my right hon. Friend answered a Question on this on 11th November. This was referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The Question was:
…if he is satisfied that no officer of the Metropolitan Police has given assistance to agents of the South African Government engaged in the surveillance of residents of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
My right hon. Friend's reply was:
Any such assistance would be contrary to instructions. Liaison between the Metropolitan Police and the South African authorities is limited to criminal matters and the protection of individuals and property."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 222.]

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Home Secretary has made it quite clear that no instructions were given which would allow this to happen at an official level. What I am asking is, did it happen, in fact, at an unofficial level?

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman knows, as does the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford—and I have not referred to this matter because the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford did not refer to it—that there was a constituency case of his, to which the hon. Member did not refer, and I do not intend to go into the details of that.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Minister has alluded to certain matters as possibly official within the ambit of criminal prosecution. Has there not been sufficient


prima facie evidence presented by my hon. Friend tonight to justify an inquiry into why no criminal charges have been preferred?

Mr. Sharples: No. It is as I said. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has said that he will put forward the evidence upon which he has based his statements, and that is absolutely correct. That is the right way to do it. If he has evidence which he believes of something wrong taking place, the right course for him, which he has adopted, is to give that evidence to the responsible authorities. I am grateful to the hon. Member for offering to do so.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Minister would surely wish to condemn any activities which involve agents of foreign Powers infiltrating lawful organisations in this country. Without asking him to comment necessarily upon the particulars I have presented to him, surely as a Minister he can say that the Government would deplore, condemn and stop that type of infiltration into lawful organisations in this country.

Mr. Sharples: Certainly, in so far as they are threats to the security of this country, one condemns them. Those are security matters. I do not intend to say any more about that.

Mr. Norman Buchan: With respect—

Mr. Sharples: I am not giving way.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Sharples: All right.

Mr. Buchan: Surely it cannot be confined to this definition of "within security". It is within the general standards and conduct of this country, and open, bona fide political and other organisations have been dealt with in this particular way. This is what the Minister is being asked to deplore; not whether or not it comes within general security matters. It is the political life and democracy in this country which is under challenge. I hope that the Minister will deplore this, as he has been asked to do.

Mr. Sharples: I stick to what I said. If there are threats to the security of this country, that is a matter for the security forces to deal with and is not a matter

to be discussed in public. If, on the other hand, there are criminal matters supported by evidence, those are dealt with in this country not by public opinion but by the courts and the police in the proper way according to our laws. That is the way we deal with them and it is different from the way certain other countries deal with them.

Mr. John Mendelson: The Minister is condoning it.

Mr. Sharples: Not at all.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is trying to slide out of answering the question. We are concerned with infiltration by a foreign Government into the affairs of legitimate organisations in this country. The infiltration may not of itself be the matter of a criminal charge—or perhaps it is, in which case the Minister should say it is—and it may not seriously affect the security of the nation, but it should be stopped because it affects the security and well-being of people who have come to this country for sanctuary.

Mr. Sharples: Over the years I have heard allegations of infiltration into organisations by people from various quarters. I stick to what I said; that if there is infiltration which concerns the security of the country, then it is a matter for the security service and is not one which I am prepared to discuss in public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), in referring to the question of complaints against the police, spoke of the large amount of time taken up by the police, and often by senior policemen, investigating these complaints. I was glad that he welcomed the new system which my right hon. Friend has announced.
My hon. Friend wondered whether so many complaints were necessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, Central that people who feel that they have a genuine complaint against the police should not be inhibited from making it. I must, however, be frank and tell the House—I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) had the same experience when he was in office—that a great many of them are trivial complaints involving very small matters indeed. But I have been impressed by the enormous amount of


time and trouble that is taken by senior police officers in investigating these complaints.
There is an onus on the public, when considering making complaints, to take into account the amount of police time that is likely to be involved, including the taking of policemen away from dealing with matters of crime, to investigate their complaints.
My hon. Friend also referred to the question of criminal statistics and spoke of the need for a more sophisticated system of recording them. There is much in what he said, and I will consider his remarks carefully. He will appreciate that one must bear in mind the questions of cost and police time in completing these details.
There are difficulties involved in obtaining accurate figures of the cost of crime. It is not too difficult, by looking at the insurance figures and so on of what has been taken in the course of robberies, to arrive at a figure. However, when one takes into account the much larger sums that are involved in the creation of long companies and so on, it is difficult to arrive at a realistic figure of the cost of crime. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he equally appreciates the difficulties.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central referred to what he described as an illicit leak to the Press of information concerning a certain case. If he will speak to me about it, or write to me, giving the details, I will certainly look into the case. It is always difficult to discuss personal cases across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am grateful to the Minister of State for making that offer, but it is not an isolated case, and that is why I mentioned it. It is exemplified in the instance I gave, but one reads in the Press, unfortunately, of many other instances.

Mr. Sharples: What has struck me at the Home Office, where one is dealing with a large number of cases, is that practically every case is completely different. Only rarely does one find cases of the same circumstances or difficulty. But, as I say, if the hon. Gentleman

has a particular case I will certainly look at it.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to community relations. I am sure that he will have read, as I did, the report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, and will have noted the very high importance which the Commissioner places on the whole subject. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are now one commander and two chief superintendents at the police headquarters whose duty is concerned solely with community relations. Eighteen chief inspectors at divisions are also concerned.
It is not only the officers who have direct responsibility for community relations who are involved: every police officer, certainly in London, and, I think, in the country as a whole, has as one of his duties the maintenance of good community relations. Indeed, it is very often the ordinary policeman on the beat and not the community relations officer who can make as good a contribution as anyone. On this aspect, I was glad that the hon. Member paid tribute to the Police Federation. It has done a great deal of work, and should be complimented. I am glad that he also paid a tribute to the working party.
The hon. Gentleman knows my own views about the recruitment of coloured police. I have been saying for a long time that I wished there were more coloured applicants. It would not be right to have a lower standard for them; I am certain that that would be wrong, and it would not be in their own interests. The standard should be the same as for anyone else wanting to join. I have been into this matter very carefully, and my understanding is that exactly the same standards are applied to a coloured person wanting to join as to anyone else. Every chief constable to whom I have spoken, and the Commissioner himself, has told me that he is very anxious to have more coloured people joining.
I went yesterday to the careers exhibition at Olympia. If I may do a plug, I recommend every hon. Member who is interested to go. The police stand is quite excellent, and one of the things that struck me was the number of coloured boys taking an interest in it. This is very encouraging. I do not have a break down of the number who said they were


interested but, speaking of them all and not just of the coloured youths, the number of young people showing an interest in making the police a career was very encouraging indeed.
Since this is the first time that we have had a debate about the Metropolitan Police for a long time and since it will probably be some months before we do so again, it would be appropriate, especially since he retires in April, to pay a tribute to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Sir John Waldron. No Commissioner has had four more difficult years, including the demonstrations culminating in the Grosvenor Square demonstration and the two great gangs, the Krays and the Richardsons, who have both been incarcerated. When one thinks of the amount of police effort and time which went into the solution of those cases one realises that we should pay tribute to Sir John and to those senior officers—some of whom are also due to retire soon—who have helped him.
I am very glad that we have had this short debate. I realise that it went slightly wider than the Metropolitan Police, and I will look into the other matters raised.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (FISHERIES)

2.16 a.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I express my gratitude—I am sure that I speak for the whole House—for the opportunity to initiate a debate on the negotiations on fisheries with the European Economic Community. Under the agreement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has brought about, all sectors of the industry will continue to thrive. It is evidence of Her Majesty's Government's interest in this matter that not only is my right hon. and learned Friend present but also the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who played a notable part in the negotiations. I know that, if he had not been on a fishing expedition to Moscow, the Minister of Agriculture would also have been here.
I do not wish to dwell on the history of this matter, except to say that, from the word "go", I and many other hon. Members, and the fishermen themselves, were totally opposed to the E.E.C. com-

mon fisheries policy as originally formulated. What has become known as the "beach doctrine" was utterly unacceptable to the British industry and particular to the inshore section.
But it would be a mistake to assume that the fishery limits were the only part of the general policy with which we would take issue. For instance, the policy over the producer organisations might be suitable for the E.E.C., but certainly not for the British inshore industry, which is based on completely different premises.
I will not weary the House with details of the share fishermen and the way in which he operates, but the policy formulated by the E.E.C. would have been to the disadvantage of our fishermen and to large parts of the British coastline where the well-being of large parts of the population is dependent on the welfare of the inshore fishing industry.
When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced negotiations in July, 1970, he asked the E.E.C. to postpone the implementation of the proposed common fisheries policy at least until the United Kingdom and the other applicant countries for membership could take part in discussions about it. Clearly, as has often been said by my right hon. and learned Friend, a policy suitable which was suitable for six countries—effectively, as far as we were concerned, three: France, Belgium and Western Germany—was totally unsuitable for 10 countries for many reasons. Possibly the major reason, which may often be overlooked in this connection, is that the Six are net importers of fish, whereas we and Norway are net exporters.
Regrettably the common fisheries policy was ratified in October of last year and implemented on 1st February this year. I say "regrettably" advisedly, because in my view the E.E.C. by doing what they did, made things that much more difficult for themselves and infinitely more difficult for my right hon. and learned Friend.
The question often asked is, "Why were the fisheries negotiations left until the end?" I do not pretend to know the intricacies of international negotiations at high level, but in the event I think that Her Majesty's Government were completely justified in playing this


question long. My right hon. Friend has always said that he was determined to get an agreement which was fair to all. In my judgment, that is precisely what he has got with this agreement.
It is equally true that the negotiations which have taken place were genuine. If one is negotiating one must be prepared to give and take. Give and take must come from both sides, but in my view, though possibly it may not be diplomatic to say so in an international sense, Her Majesty's Government have given precious little and have retained an awful lot in the interests of British fishermen.
When one is applying to join a club, one does not normally anticipate altering the rules to suit oneself before actually becoming a member. One waits to become a member before trying to influence them. But the Government have obtained, in real terms, at least 98 per cent. of what I would have asked for.—[Interruption.]—The scoffing comes from the Opposition. We shall see as time goes by exactly what we have got. The fishing industry is thriving, and I suggest that it will go on thriving and will improve.
But it does not end there. As a full member of the club later we shall have an active and deliberate part to play in framing any rules which may be needed for the future.
In this day and age secret diplomacy is extremely difficult. If no news comes out of a conference, it seems that the mass media are inclined to manufacture it. If anything filters out it is so thankfully and greedily gobbled up that inevitably it leads to distortion. I suggest that it also leads to hasty judgments, ill-considered comments, and, to coin a phrase, a widespread inflation of balloons all over the country.
Frankly, we had a classic example over the weekend when rumour and counter-rumour flashed over the wires and ether because the noble Lord Boothby was reported initially as saying that he thought that the agreement was a sell out. Fortunately, to give him his due, he has, in effect, withdrawn that statement, and I am very glad about it.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), who is not present,

is reported in Monday's Press to have said:
The surrender to the rapacious E.E.C. terms is a callous betrayal of the interests and livelihood of Scottish inshore fishermen.
I trust that on reflection he will eat those words, because that statement shows his abysmal ignorance at the time of the agreement and the current position.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), questioning my right hon. and learned Friend on Monday, said that my right hon. and learned Friend had
capitulated to French intransigence.…."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 54.]
The right hon. Gentleman is hoist on his own marlin spike, because part of the agreement with the Six gives large stretches of the French coast around Brittany and Normandy a 12-mile limit. I do not think that such an area, which returns Gaullist M.P.s, would allow the French Government of the day, whether now or in 11 years' time, to go back on that. The French will want the agreement just as much as we, in all probability, shall want to retain our position at whatever time the matter comes up for discussion.
There is no doubt that the British fishing industry has been doing well. Over the first six months of this year productivity went up at the annual rate of £300 per man. That is a great achievement, and we want it to continue.
Seventy-three per cent. of all the Scottish landings of fish come from the inshore fleet. The fishing industry, not least the inshore section, is worth preserving, and I am persuaded that the agreement will preserve it. I accept the agreement without reservation.
I understand that negotiations are continuing on some details at official level, but I have little doubt now that what has been achieved basically in the alteration, for instance, of the marketing arrangements will be of great benefit to the remoter areas, in that the differential regional withdrawal prices will be not only acceptable but very helpful to the industry. The same can be said for alterations which are to be made to the producer organisation.
On the fisheries limits, we should naturally have been happier to see a uniform status quo throughout the United Kingdom, but what has been achieved is


adequate for our needs. To have the 12-mile limit based on the headland-to-headland base lines of the existing six-mile limit is the basis on which we can and will work. For north and east of Scotland we have entirely the status quo —complete protection for, and continued exclusion of all foreign vessels from, the Minches and the Clyde, two areas vital to Scottish fishing. We also have the retention of control in every sense in the entire six- to 12-mile band around United Kingdom coasts. In certain places the historic rights will remain. We have the retention of complete control of conservation, a vital part of the policy.
That and much more makes up to a satisfactory agreement, and I am confident that when all the details of the agreement have been read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested, they will be accepted by the whole industry. There is no doubt that there is no cause for lack of confidence in the future by any section of the British fishing industry. The Government have shown clearly that they have the ability, will and desire to stand up and take care of our fishing industry at any stage. I understand that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland met the Fisheries Working Party for Scotland today in Edinburgh, the meeting was a great success. I understand that those who took part from the fishing industry side were much reassured, to say the least, and went away happy. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Not only did the representatives of the fishing industry in Scotland in general accept the agreement, but individuals expressed confidence in the future, saying that they could go ahead with their own investment plans because the industry's future was now assured.

Mr. Baker: I am glad to hear that. If nothing else does, what my hon. Friend has just said makes the debate worth while. There have been an awful lot of Jeremiahs about in recent days, not least among them the leader writer of the Aberdeen Press and Journal, who wrote, inter alia, on Tuesday:
… the fishers themselves will have to live under a suspended death sentence until their fate is decided in Brussels… The member

nations of the Six know this full well. They agreed to the continuation of 12-mile and 6-mile limits in the secure knowledge that quite soon they will be able to press for what they believe to be their rights, the opening of all Britain's fishing grounds to foreign trawlers.
Those examples I have quoted are either wilful misrepresentation or the said leader writer is so blinded by prejudice that he cannot or will not understand the agreement. I am satisfied that it is a very good agreement for the Scottish inshore industry and that a great deal has been achieved.
I should be grateful for confirmation of certain figures by my right hon. and learned Friend. I estimate that the whole of the Scottish catch by the inshore fleet in the 0–12 mile band amounted to roughly £16·6 million in value and 1·2 million cwt. last year. I understand also that on the west coast of Scotland, from Cape Wrath to Solway, during the same period the catch was £600,000 and 100,000 cwt. This was for the whole of the coastline, irrespective of limits. Is it the case that in the six to 12-mile band in the same area the weight and value were both about 5 per cent. in the same period? It is true that our fishermen will continue to be able to fish in these same grounds and therefore in catching power we are losing nothing in that area.
I turn to a question which has given rise to most problems, the review of the whole position by the end of 1982. I would have had great difficulty in supporting the Government if my right hon. and learned Friend had returned to the House on Monday with a permanent arrangement, without any flexibility. As is the case with everything today, fishing is changing, methods of catch change, as do types of gear. The research taking place will produce new types of gear and so on. Who can say where the fish will be in 11 years time? They do not know where the white lines laying down the limits are. Who can say what changes there may be in the types and species of fish that will be eaten? Public tastes change. We may wish to push our limits out. Is it not a fact that fishermen and their families would expect to benefit from the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund of the E.E.C. which will be the means by which the fishing industry will be aided?
What expert can say that changes are not necessary in the methods of support? There are all sorts of reasons why I would reject permanency and opt for the genuine open-ended review my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted.
When the negotiations on the remaining details have been completed will the Government consider publishing a White Paper or some such document? Much of the misunderstandings inside and outside the industry which have arisen and could arise again could have been resolved if this had been done. I hope the Government will give urgent consideration to this. The whole tenor of this agreement smacks of firmness. With the continued support of this Government there is a good future for the industry under this agreement, and I trust that I may be allowed to commend it to the House.

2.37 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I will not follow the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) in his geophysical musings. In forecasting 10 years ahead I felt that he would tell us that the North Sea would turn into a Zuider Zee and that we would lose the use of it. My political nose smells something cooking here this evening. What a galaxy of talent on the Government Front Bench! It is very nice to see the Chancellor of the Duchy here, but look at those Ministers flanking him. They are in support, but maybe they are also here to hear something which we have so far not been vouchsafed. The Patronage Secretary is not quite asleep. He, too, seems to be musing about what might happen.
I am glad to see the Chancellor. He must mean business, coming to the House at this time of night. We will await his words of wisdom. Let us hope he says something firm and definite about the end of the 10-year period and what powers he has. I want to tell him that what he has told us over the last few months does not quite coincide with what has been said for Her Majesty's Government in another place. I should like him to line these things up. Earlier today I questioned the Leader of the House about E.E.C. fishing limits and received a dusty answer so I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be more forthcoming and yield-

ing tonight. He is not supposed to be a yielding man, but a hard man, who has been bargaining so toughly with our continental cousins.
I want to confine my speech to the question of the 10-year transitional period and what is to happen afterwards. The hon. Member for Banff talked about not going back, whatever that might mean. I do not want to go back; I want to go forward. I want to ensure that we have all the locks, bolts and bars necessary when we get to 1982 or 1983 so that the continentals, whether Gaullists or not, will not be able to take us backward.
It is more than scandalous, it is iniquitous, that we are not to have a full-dress debate before the end of term, before the Government sign the Treaty of Accession. There is no equity in this situation. Fisheries is a unique issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that the negotiations have gone on for so long and he has finalised them so late that we are now faced with a fait accompli. This matter should be debated before the Treaty is signed. Not to debate it is a complete negation of democracy. Up to now all we have had is spasmodic and desultory exchanges at Question Time with a fusillade of answers from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Although the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is present, for which we are grateful, to have this debate at this time and in these circumstances is unworthy of the occasion and is indicative of the history of the negotiations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government are hell-bent on taking Britain into the E.E.C. Hence there is little purpose in my niggling, as the hon. Member for Banff did, about this or that part of the coastline, this size of net, that type of boat, this kind of fish or that boat sailing under a certain flag coming to catch the fish. To do that would be stupid.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us why the area from the North-West of Scotland to the Humber, including the 20 miles from the mouth of the Coquet, which was my birthplace, to north of the Tweed, is picked out for fishing up the continentals between the six- and 12-mile limit. Does he not know of the seaport called Seahouses and that the men there must get a living and that


the outer belt should not be fished out? Perhaps he will say, as he has said before, that there are only seals there, basking on Holy Island near Lindisfarne Abbey, and no fish. We shall see.
I come to my main point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can argue with the fishermen of Filey or St. Ives about whether he has 95 or 98 per cent. of value of national catch still within the safeguards. I want to ask questions about what has been said in the other place. Will the Minister have a veto in 1983 over any possible efforts that the French may make to change conditions back? There is a curious discrepancy between the statements of the Minister of State, Scottish Office in the other place and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in this Chamber. Their official statements last Monday were identical, but after questioning by my noble Friend Lord Hoy, whose knowledge about these matters we all know, about having given up a formal automatic right of veto, Baroness Tweedsmuir said that
… if unanimity cannot be reached, then each country has the right of veto if they have declared a particular question to be of vital national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: House of Lords, 14th December, 1971; Vol. 326, c. 1012.]
This was said on behalf of the Government in the other place. Again, after questioning by Lord Chalfont about the possibility of a change to a comprehensive majority vote in the Council of Ministers, the noble Lady was equally emphatic:
There is no question at the moment of any change …".
The noble Lady, speaking on behalf of the Government, chided Lord Chalfont with forgetting that the Prime Minister, after meeting President Pompidou, had especially stated that the two leaders had firmly agreed
… that subjects which were of vital national interest would be subject to the unanimity rule.
The noble Lady referred the noble Lord to the statement by the Prime Minister in this House on 24th May last. The Earl of Swinton was not convinced and asked:
Does that mean that we should have the right of veto if we objected?".
The noble Lady replied:
Yes, my Lords."—[OFFIcIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th December, 1971; Vol. 326, c. 1008.]

Lord Boothby, that ineffable figure who judges what is good or not so good in fishing. said he had asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the same question he had asked Lady Tweedsmuir; whether the Government considered the new arrangements could never be changed without our consent, and he said:
She said, 'Yes', and he said, 'Yes', and that satisfied me."—[OFFIcIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th December 1971, Vol. 326, c. 1010.]
This is being stated on behalf of the Government in the other place, but we have not had it stated down below here. Lord Hoy asked Lady Tweedsmuir whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in agreement with her, and said that, if that was so, it would not be difficult for her to request him to repeat the statement here. Lord Hoy asked the noble Lady to arrange this. I wonder whether this has been done. If the Minister in the other place has conferred with the Chancellor of the Duchy, have they got their statements into line? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman, then, prepared to tell us in this Chamber this evening exactly the same thing as the noble Lady said on behalf of the Government? If he does, we shall be delighted. We shall tell him he has come clean, not only with the noble Lady but with some 20,000 fishermen about our coasts.

2.49 a.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I would start off my very brief intervention by saying that I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend has made a very good agreement indeed in Brussels. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), I thought, when the Common Market countries came to an agreement and ratified it during the negotiations between those countries, that that was one of the most unfortunate incidents at that time, but I believe that the negotiations just concluded, which give our fishermen along much of our coastline, particularly in the South-West and in the north, protection up to the 12-mile limit, except in some areas where, traditionally, fishermen of other countries have fished, have produced one of the best results which could have been expected.
I played a small part in the original negotiations bringing out the fishing limits in 1964 to the 6-mile and 12-mile bands, and I well remember how difficult it was to reach agreement on those bands. For my right hon. and learned Friend now to be able to conclude an agreement with the Six to continue for a 10-year transition period the 12-mile exclusive fishing band round the most important part of our coast is a feat on which he and the Government should be congratulated.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has doubts about what will happen in 1982 and—in my right hon. and learned Friend's words—continuing agreement after that time, when the Commission has done its review and presented to the Council of Ministers its views on the state of the industry and the social consequences of any changes which might have to be made.
As I understand it, at that moment, after the 10-year transition period has passed, we shall revert to the position as negotiated and ratified within the Common Market during the last 18 months. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, and as was said in the other place—the hon. Gentleman referred to it—the agreement between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of France whereby any vital national interest will continue to be subject to the unanimity rule will be of particular relevance here.
It is not only this country which will have an interest in seeing that the existing conditions are continued should the report show that the fishing industry needs them and the social consequences of changes would be such that they should be continued. Therefore, a right of veto will obtain for any proposal which affected the national interests of any country. The House should realise that a vital national interest will not arise in the case of other countries wanting to come up to our beaches, if I may so put it. That would not be a vital national interest for another country. But it would be a vital national interest for us if, as I believe might happen, it could be shown that it would be severely detrimental to our inshore fishermen, both commercially and socially, if that took place.

Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is giving his personal answer to my question. I would rather have it from the Minister in a few minutes, but I am glad to have one slice—never mind the loaf. He is saying definitely that it is his interpretation that we have a veto in this matter at the end of the 10 years. Is that right?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This is my personal view. I believe that, after the 10-year period is up, and the Commission has put forward its view in 1982 on what the conditions of the industry are and what the effects would be if there were a proposition by another country that it wished to fish up to our beaches, we would be in a position to say, "No; it is our vital national interest", in the light of the report by then prepared by the Commission on the instructions of the Council of Ministers for the Council of Ministers.
For that reason, I believe that what my right hon. and learned Friend has negotiated is perfectly acceptable. What I find so difficult to accept is that, whenever any kind of negotiation results in agreement for a review at the end of a certain period—three or four years on the question of sugar, for instance, or 10 years for fishing—hon. and right hon. Members opposite immediately assume that Ministers and others in the Common Market countries will do their utmost, will lie and cheat and do their damndest, to do this country down and will not behave as honourable men.
This I find intolerable, and I will not accept it. I have a great deal of contact with Europeans who are in positions of honour and trust, and I find them just as honourable as right hon. Gentlemen opposite and on my own Front Bench. As my right hon. and learned Friend said on Monday when he made his statement, there never has been a decision during the past years when a vital interest of any country has not been safeguarded by the negotiations on the Council of Ministers. I am content to leave it at that.
The culmination of the long series of negotiations by my right hon. and learned Friend is something he can be pleased, and indeed proud of. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff has said, the inshore fishing industry is in a prosperous


state, and I believe it will continue to prosper. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Scotland has said, the agreement can give to the fishing industry the green light to go ahead with investment plans in the confidence that it will enjoy increased protection now and a prosperous future.

2.57 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am glad of this opportunity to intervene briefly in this debate, since I have the honour to represent a maritime county. As the right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said in the House two days ago, the matter we are now discussing almost pales into insignificance compared with certain nefarious acts of the Government in relation to the E.E.C. negotiations. For once in my lifetime, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The fisheries negotiations show the Government in an extremely unfavourable light.
The starting point in considering the essence of this question is to be found in an event which occurred in the summer of 1970. That is when the Common Market countries decided that they would shape a common fishing policy. Anyone who is acquainted with the neurosis of uniformity which from time to time attacks the Europhiles will well understand why they found it necessary to reduce fishing regulations to a common system. Of course, there is reference to such matters in Article 38 of the Treaty of Rome, which provides for extending the common agricultural policy to all matters listed in Annexe II. These include fish, crustaceans and molluscs.
Particularly significant in this desire for uniformity is the timing of it, for it was brought forward exactly one day before the United Kingdom was due to make its opening, statement on its application in 1970 for membership of the E.E.C. I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have tried to pretend that this is all sweetly innocent and the product of the European good will with which we shall live for many decades to come, that there is something utterly Machiavellian and unprincipled about the timing of that epoch-making move by the European partners.
I contend that that was an act of tyranny and nonsense. It was an act

of tyranny because in acting in such a way they dealt in a contemptuous way with the four applicants for membership, knowing full well—as happened in the event—that when they were able to frame a common fishing policy they would be presenting these new members with an inescapable fait accompli.
It was an act of nonsense for two reasons, because two monumental factors are involved. First, the 12-mile limit since 1964, since the Fishery Limits Act of that year for which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was largely responsible, has constituted a strong and sure shield for British fishermen.
Let us look at the figures. Between 1964 and 1971 the value of inshore catches has almost doubled. The Scottish figures of catches shown an increase of slightly over 100 per cent. The figures overall show catches worth £17 million in 1964 and over £31 million in 1970. It is a pious and unfounded hope for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West to say that there is no reason now that this prosperity should not develop from year to year. If the existence of the 12-mile limit for 6½ years was responsible for this prosperity, is there not every reason to believe that, if the basic factor is interfered with, the process of development will be reversed?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure the hon. Gentleman, for greater accuracy, will accept the fact that during the 1964 negotiations we allowed large areas where the traditional fishermen from France and Belgium and other countries were allowed to fish up to the 6-mile limit. He will realise that we shall still be able to control the conservation of fish up to the 12 miles in the interim and afterwards.

Mr. Morgan: I accept that. The statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster two days ago said 95 per cent. of the catches had been safeguarded, and the impression he gave to the House—I think he did so deliberately—was that the areas which are exclusively the prerogative of British fishermen would remain so for that 10-year period. So although the foreign fishermen are allowed over a wide mileage of the 12-mile limit, they did not happen to be the most important fishing areas referred to in the Minister's statement. There is no


gainsaying that the 1964 Act has been of tremendous benefit to British fishermen. It is the protection of this Act that is now being bartered away.
The second monumental factor lies in the fact that once the four applicant countries have joined the Community it means the whole pattern of supply and demand for fish is completely changed. The market will change from being a net importer to being a net exporter of fish. What sort of people are they who are willing to bring about such changes knowing that they will have a fundamental effect on the lives and industries of the four applicant countries, and yet give them no opportunity whatever, by way of negotiation or even of consultation, to put their own views and to protect their own interests in a matter that is so fundamental to the future of each of them?
What it means in consequence of that common fisheries policy is that since 1st February this year it is possible for the countries of the Six to fish right up to the beaches of each other's coastal waters.
There is an escape clause in that the 3-mile limit is possible in most exceptional circumstances and that it was not to be for more than five years at the maximum. So whereas we now have an absolute guarantee, post-1982 we will be entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of our majority partners in the E.E.C.
The Conservatives are entitled to form their view as to the generosity, integrity and magnanimity of our partners. It may be that their view is not universally shared in the House. But they must admit that the legal guarantee disappears—that is the long and short of the whole matter. Up to a few days ago, it seems to me as one who has kept fairly close contact with this issue, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has, over the past few months, sedulously sought to give the impression that he stood for an absolute guarantee post-1982. I quote from the Financial Times of 10th November, 1971:
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, the U.K.'s chief negotiator, took much the same line,…
much the same line as Norway and Ireland, that is—
… although he adopted a milder tone than the Irish and Norwegian Ministers. He insisted nonetheless that there must be continuing protection even after the end of any initial period in which national limits could be maintained.

He never came to this House and said that the protection he had in mind was something fortuitous which was entirely within the gift of the dominant and majority interests in Europe.
When he referred to protection he referred to it in the context of lawful guarantees, matters where we would not be at the mercy of anybody nor have to seek the grace and favour of another member of the E.E.C. All that has now been completely changed.
I am not saying that the Minister went along to Brussels intending to cheat and be dishonest. But once the decision to enter the E.E.C. had been made, knowing full well that it had been made on the basis of the treaty itself, the Minister was in an impossible position. No member of this House would have thought for a moment that, with the by now relentless, inexorable necessity of Britain entering the E.E.C., as Conservatives see it, there is any question that the whole of that future should be jeopardised by any issue relating to fish. The 20,000 fishermen of Britain simply could not be allowed to frustrate the destiny of Britain in Europe, as the Europhilias see it.
The Chancellor was not the only person to make promises in this connection. Solemn promises have also been made quite recently by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland. As far as I know the Secretary of State for Wales did not give us the benefit of any assurance in this matter. What was the attitude of those Ministers in Cabinet when they were told the result of the Brussels negotiations? How did they see their integrity in this context? Did they think that their honour was in any way compromised or that their honesty might be impugned? They had given a solemn undertaking not only to British fishermen but to the British public at large. That undertaking cannot possibly be honoured properly now. What are they going to do as men of honour?
It is not just a matter of the consistency of Government Ministers. It is a matter of acute loss and justifiable anxiety for the fishermen of the United Kingdom. These are not matters which can be brushed aside lightly, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did when he was questioned two days ago following his statement in the House. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn


Roberts) asked what the position was with regard to Cardigan Bay: why was it that, with so many fishing areas in Britain protected by the 12-mile limit for this temporary period of 10 years, for such it is, no such benefit was bestowed on Cardigan Bay? The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
I referred particularly to the need for protection in areas which are not already adequately covered by the base lines or in which there was very little fishing between six and 12 miles. Cardigan Bay is totally protected by the existing base lines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 58.]
When I heard that, I thought that the base lines of Cardigan Bay had been drawn rather differently from the base lines affecting the coastline of the west of the United Kingdom. Then I went to the Library and saw the excellent map provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I found nothing to distinguish the base lines in Cardigan Bay from those in any of the other coastal areas of the United Kingdom. Of course, these six and 12-mile limits do not closely follow as a parallel every nook, bay, inlet and little headland. They have been broadly drawn around the British Isles.
One sees on that map that, whereas for example, the Western Isles are situated some 30 or 40 miles to the west of the Scottish mainland, the base line lies to the west of the Western Isles again. As a matter of common sense, if it was anything approximately to a closely parallel line drawn on that coast, it would run between the Western Isles and the Scottish mainland. Again I ask what was the purport of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer? Did he deceive himself, or did he use it as a subterfuge and an artifice in order to avoid the proper and pertinent question asked by the hon. Member for Conway?
This is a situation where the Government are acting with a ruthless disregard for the position of British fishermen. Although in my constituency the employment afforded is employment to some dozens of people, in a situation such as that which exists in the county, every job must be regarded as a treasure in itself. I do not exaggerate that in regard to the economic viability of many small communities. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are well acquainted with the employment situation in a number of small fishing communities which

rely almost entirely upon such an industry.
I am sorry that the debate does not allow this scope, but I should welcome an opportunity soon to be able to deal in a more constructive manner with the question which is now opened up by these negotiations, which is to ask what special assistance can be and should be given to such areas as these. In Wales, we had a report on small fishing harbours and ports published by the Council for Wales some 15 years ago. It was never implemented. I believe that there is a growing need for the co-ordination of special assistance to these areas, perhaps along the lines of a body in Wales not dissimilar from the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
But what we are concerned with tonight is the significance of what happened at Brussels a few days ago. That event speaks a great deal by itself. It speaks about the calibre and the fibre of the men who represent us at Brussels. It speaks, too, of the ruthless arrogance of those who very soon will be our dominant partners when we are subsumed in Europe, and in whose hands the destiny of our people will ultimately lie.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I felt that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) was scratching around to find some real form of criticism of what has taken place. My right hon. Friend will be able to deal pretty quickly with the matters raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. James Johnson: I hope so.

Mr. Mills: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) departed a long way from his usual standard of fairness. He was unfair. He was also misleading. He will find, on reflection, that he is out of step with his own fishermen and most fishermen around our coast. His was a most unhappy speech, and it was not up to his usual standard.
I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has achieved. I am happier about this decision than I am, perhaps, about other of his negotiating points. I would put it at the top of the list, with New Zealand second. The point about which I am still slightly concerned is sugar. But


in the fisheries negotiations he has achieved what he set out to achieve. In the years to come it will be seen to be a major achievement.
I am slightly unhappy about the question of Norway, which has not been mentioned in the debate. I would have liked to have seen it settled. It may well be that Norway obtains even better terms, or does not enter the Community. It is a slightly worrying point. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will say a little more about it.
Many rather wild and inaccurate statements have been made on this subject by people who would now like to withdraw them. A reading of the newspapers a day or two ago showed how inaccurate they are. It is right that we should have taken a very firm stand on this and that fishermen should protest. It is right that fishermen should have come up from the South-West to protest. They were the only fishermen who gave up a weeks work and came in their trawlers to protest. In spite of all that is said in Wales, Scotland or anywhere else, it was the fishermen of Devonshire who felt so strongly about the matter that they came up and protested, as they have the right so to do. They did something practical; they demonstrated. No one else came to protest.
Looking at what has happened over the past two or three months, it is obvious that some people, including some Members of the House, do not understand what it is to negotiate and bargain. It seems extraordinary to me that they do not appear to realise what my right hon. and learned Friend has been doing. One cannot just walk into a room and say, "I want this and I want that". It has to be bargained for and negotiated. If they were honest, hon. Members opposite would admit that in their hearts they know that if it had been George Brown who had returned with these terms and this achievement they would have been the first to say how good an achievement it was. It is no use hon. Members opposite shaking their heads. They ought to have the courage to admit it.
To say, as some have—even the hon. Member for Cardigan—that it is a sell out is complete nonsense. It is not being truthful and honest. The hon. Member

for Cardigan knows it in his heart; he is making a political point about it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mills: No.

Mr. Morgan: He referred to me.

Mr. Mills: All right, but I may not answer his intervention.

Mr. Morgan: That may be a wise course. Having heard the Chancellor of the Duchy say time and again that there would have to be some guarantee beyond 10 years, did he not think that his right hon. and learned Friend was referring to a legal guarantee?

Mr. Mills: I believe that what my right hon. and learned Friend has achieved is a guarantee, because when we are in we shall be able to deal with these matters. The power of veto will also be available to us.
This is an emotional problem and I have been interested to note that apart from the fishermen, the people generally have shown genuine concern for our fishermen and fishing rights. It is clear that the nation as a whole feels strongly about these issues, and this has strengthened my right hon. and learned Friend's hand in these negotiations.
It is clear that, whatever we achieved, some people would not be satisfied because of a deep-rooted hatred of the Common Market and the idea of our joining it. All reason seems to go by the board when they discuss this subject. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should admit that my right hon. and learned Friend has achieved a considerable measure of success in the negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) was right to say that there could be advantage in having a 10-year period followed by a review. Things change and we do not know now what we will want in 10 years' time. We will want some boundaries or limits, but it may be more or less.

Mr. James Johnson: It seems that, by definition, the hon. Gentleman might be prepared to accept something less than we have now. He referred to the possibility of the figure being more or less, Would he accept less?

Mr. Mills: I did not say I wanted less. I said that at that time we might want something different, perhaps an extension, or other areas defined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff said, fish move and circumstances change. Indeed, we in the South-West have not seen many herrings for a long time. I therefore see considerable merit in what my right hon. and learned Friend has achieved, and the matter should be looked at carefully after the 10-year period.
I am certain that the fishermen of the South-West realise that they are protected for the next 10 years, and this will be of great benefit to them. We have seen the results of these limits with the growth of fishing. One thinks of the tremendous efforts at Brixham and the co-operative there. I am sure that the industry will go forward in the knowledge that it has this protection. The power of veto is important, but I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that, should the need arise, we will be able to exercise it in 10 years' time.
We should also not overlook the fact that aid for modernisation can be obtained from Community funds. Considering the contribution that we shall be making to the E.E.C., this will be welcomed and will be of benefit to our fishermen.
The fishing problem is not new; it has always been with us, particularly in the South-West. Certain disputed areas have always been regarded as private waters. This does not concern only the French, the Dutch or the Belgians, but the Cornish fishermen. Woe betide the Cornish fishermen if they come into Devon waters. I recall the fun and games we had some years ago off Lundy when shots were fired at a Cornish vessel —"Silent Waters"—which crept in and shot its pots in waters it did not normally fish. What a row there was then. There is no doubt that fishermen look on certain areas as their own private fishing grounds. I do not wish to alarm my right hon. and learned Friend too much, but the fishermen of the South-West have told me that whatever agreement he brought back they would have seen to it that foreign fishing vessels did not come into our waters. We have had evidence of this when they have run

right across the trawls of the foreign boats.
I remember, too, an excellent three or four days I spent on the fishery protection vessel H.M.S. "Belton", when we had a considerable amount of interesting work to do. What amused me was that whenever we investigated any foreign boats they always protested their innocence, even though they were well inside territorial waters.
It is important that the fishery protection service should be strengthened. We have not enough of these boats in operation, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will do something about it. Where the fish are, there the fishermen want to go, and if there has been a shortage of fish somewhere on the coasts of other countries the pressures are very great. The fishermen creep in and fish where the fish are.
It is no good the Opposition saying that what has been agreed at Brussels is not an achievement. It is a very real achievement, and in the years to come we shall see the results of that achievement.

3.29 a.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that the Government will not regard this present discussion as having pre-empted a full fisheries debate in the House before the Treaty of Accession is signed. On 13th December by right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pressed very strongly for a debate. The House has a right not only to debate the subject but to vote on it before the signing of the Treaty of Accession. It is very important that we should have all the details and should know precisely what the agreement means, and how it will work. As it is, we have had different interpretations. Two hon. Members opposite said quite clearly that there will be a power of veto after the end of 1982, while some on this side argue that there will not be a veto.
Within the fishing community as a whole there has been widespread dismay at the agreement reached by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps they do not know the full implications any more than we do, but it is odd that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who is very close to the fishing interests, should have been so condemnatory when he


heard what the agreement contained. It took some discussion between him and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster before he would say that he felt a little happier about it. Without confidence, investment in the industry will suffer, to the industry's long-term detriment. If the limits problem is not solved, processing and retailing will suffer as much as catching.
I do not believe that the overall package for our entry of the E.E.C. is in this country's best interests. We who do not approve of this policy are therefore more critical of this agreement than other people, and consider it more searchingly. But this does not absolve the Minister from answering our questions.
The saddest thing is the priority which the Government have given to fishing. It was relegated to the rag-bag of items at the end of negotiations. This is not sinister: it just was not throught important enough to be in the forefront. But those who take the conspiratorial view of politics think that it was deliberately held until the end, first, because the negotiations on limits would be particularly difficult.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) has said a number of times that unless he was satisfied that the interests of the inshore fleet in his constituency were fully met he could not support his Government. If this agreement had been presented before the debate on the principle, he would have been in a very difficult position and would not have made the speech that he made tonight in which I detected some self-justification because, having voted for the principle, he now faces criticism in his locality.
On fishing limits more than anything else, the general public can see the effect of our entry of the E.E.C., whereas they do not understand so clearly talk about the rundown of the sterling balances or the free movement of capital. The conspiratorial view is that every effort has therefore been made to keep these details from them, because once it was known how far the essential interests had not been protected, all hell would break loose. The Chancellor of the Duchy has repeatedly said that it was important to get the right agreement. Definitions are important, because what is at stake is the

well-being of those involved in processing as well as catching fish.
One constant question is, are the arrangements transitional or permanent? The Government have fallen between the two stools. It is odd that, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman maintains that this is not a transitional arrangement, two of his hon. Friends have tonight talked about "these transitional arrangements". They may be wrong, but the Minister can deal with this.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has often been open with the House on this matter, as he was on 1st December when he said:
We are not asking for anything which is necessarily permanent. However, it must be clear that when we have a review it must be a genuine review in which full regard will be paid, in the circumstances obtaining at the time, to the social, economic and conservation aspects of fishing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 454–5.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been absolutely clear and open with the House that he was not, on 1st December or at any time, seeking permanent arrangements. He could never ask for permanent arrangements, because they would be out of accord with the general principles which were established at the opening of the negotiations in 1970.
It is worth recalling in this context the opening statement by M. Pierre Harmel, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the E.E.C. on 30th June, 1970. Defining the Community's position, he said:
We assume in principle that your states accept the treaties and their political objectives, all the decisions of every type which have been taken since the treaties came into force and the choices made in the fields of development.
Later, he said:
Under these conditions, the Community wishes, at the opening of the negotiations, to state a certain number of principles which it intends to apply:
1. The rule which must necessarily govern the negotiations is that the solution of any problems of adjustment which may arise must be sought in the establishment of transitional measures and not in changes in the existing rules.
Where I believe that the Chancellor has not been quite so open with the House is on the precise position of what the agreement means. I accept and welcome that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has obtained a valuable and welcome derogation from the common


fisheries policy regarding limits and access.
On 13th December the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
We have further agreed that before the end of 1982 the enlarged Community will, after studying a report on the situation then obtaining with particular reference to the economic and social conditions of inshore areas and the state of the fish stocks, examine the arrangements which could follow what we have negotiated for the first 10 years.
Here I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 52.]
Two important points arise from that statement. First, we have negotiated for the first 10 years. All that we have done at the present time is to discuss transitional arrangements for 10 years.
Secondly, the provisions do not automatically lapse at the end of 10 years. What is important is not what hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to say, but that, failing unanimous agreement on policy following the negotiations for the next decade, the principle of free access must apply. In other words, do not believe that the Government have a veto on what happens after 10 years; it is, in fact, a reverse veto, the opposite to what the Chancellor set out to achieve. The Luxembourg agreement of 1965 must work against us, not necessarily in our favour. It has been commonly assumed and argued throughout the negotiations that, once we were in, the doctrine of unanimous agreement regarding matters of vital national interest would work in our favour. I believe that this is the only instance in the whole negotiations where this does not work in our favour, but against us.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman always falls back on saying that no case can be shown of the Community having over-ridden a major national interest of a member State. That sounds very good, but it applies to the setting up of new institutions and new policies. For the first time we are coming up to the possibility of a member State wishing to change an existing institution. Therefore I believe that the pressure will be to accept the present fisheries policy.
What was the purpose of the Six in pushing through a common fisheries policy to the exclusion of discussions with

Britain? We have never had a satisfactory answer to that. We did not consider fisheries worth talking about, but Norway asked specifically to be consulted and make its point of view known while the policy was being drafted. It was refused because it was not a member State.
I believe that if we are to achieve some benefit after 10 years at best we shall have to bargain away some of the concessions we now have. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling us that the Six have completely turned their backs on the present fisheries policy, to the extent that they have said that free access up to the beaches no longer applies. I will accept that as a very significant development. At no stage has the Community been prepared to budge on the essential principle of any other institutions. If they have given way to the extent that they are prepared to wipe out the question of free access and have an open review in which the present policy is scrapped, it does not put the Minister in such a good light as some of his hon. Friends claim, because it shows clearly that on matters like the common agricultural policy if he had dug in his heels we might have had a better bargain.
I cannot credit that the E.E.C. has turned its back on the common fisheries policy. What happens if there is failure to agree after the first 10 years? Do we maintain the existing position of our protected waters or go on to the question of free access? It is no use saying that we have cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantees, like that on sugar that there will be a reasonable discussion at the end of 1974. We need to know the precise legal position and obtain a legal guarantee, because we are signing a legal document concerning a policy that already exists.
I believe that the Government have failed to protect the industry for the length of time we consider necessary, because they have been blinded by their desire to gain entry to the E.E.C. at any cost. Many Governments live to regret decisions. No Government in history have not taken a decision that they have later regretted. What is to be regretted is that the damage to the fishing industry will be severe. The people who earn such a precarious living from it deserve better. The damage, once done to the


fishing stocks, can never be repaired at any cost.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I do not think that what we have heard so far from the Opposition really amounts to a great debate on this topic. Although they have tried hard, it does not see, unless the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has something up his sleeve, that the debate will be seen as having been of great significance or a major crisis of confidence in the Government. The fact is that the arrangements for the initial period are perfectly acceptable. The Minches, the Clyde, the Solway Firth, the Moray Firth, the North-East coast and the Orkneys and Shetlands are all protected and no reasonable person, in Scotland at any rate, could possibly ask for more.
The difficulty comes, as we all know, with the ending of the initial period and what is to happen then. My right hon. and learned Friend has the great gift of extreme verbal agility, and unfortunately for some of us who sit at his feet this is not altogether an unmixed blessing because sometimes the facts seem elusive. I agree with those who say that we do need to know just what the facts are. The same applies to Norway, and I believe that the real reason why Norway has so far not seen fit to accept the arrangement is because she is not specifically clear about the facts involved.
Is Norway unreasonable, are we unreasonable, in wanting to do this? Can anyone say anything definite about what will happen in ten years' time or expect the Government to do so? Maybe not. But to me there is no question of our Government in ten years' time surrendering, for example, the North Sea oil royalties. Yet fisheries are as much a natural resource as oil—and the oil is much further out than the fish in the North Sea. Nor is this question affected by the interests of the deep sea fleet, because it does not fish nearer than the 12-mile limit anywhere now. That is just one example of the way the Community's common fisheries policy seems to me to be alien to its own practice and why I believe it does not need to be fundamental to the concept of the Common market and to what my right hon. and learned Friend has done so skilfully in Brussels.
As the nub of this difficulty concerns 10 years from now, we should try, difficult as it is, to think what conditions then will be. Politically, it seems to me, whatever emerges as a result of this debate, that there will be a repetition of what has happened up to now, with the Community countries battling to get into British inshore waters and the British battling to keep them out.
What will have happened to the fisheries themselves? Oceans will have become even smaller in terms of man's capacity to deal with them. Catching techniques will have developed beyond anything, perhaps, that we can now imagine. We may be beginning to herd fish; and perhaps nearer land we may well be farming fish much more extensively than we can contemplate now. In any event, pressure on the oceans' resources can only increase.
To resist that pressure, limits will certainly go further out for the sake of conservation and the most efficient exploitation of a natural resource, and because most of us are selfish. What, then, is to be the future for our European fishermen? In future, of course, Western Europe will operate any extension of limits as a continent. In that context, historic rights for national deep sea industries will have to be negotiable in concrete terms, or they have had it. Secondly, the inshore waters must continue their existing protection as a minimum, if only to give everybody room to breathe and to keep the industry's structure sound. Thirdly we will have to police and exploit the oceans in a united fashion in future if we are not to run the risk of obliterating their riches forever.
As for Scotland, doubtless it will be felt that the conditions could have been better, but if we are to build a more worth while Europe than we have had in the past selfishness and blind allegiance to self-interest at all costs will have to go and our fishermen know that, like everyone else. On that basis a continuous and prosperous future for our industry is definitely possible.

3.52 a.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Fisheries policy is a technical subject and many of the questions ought to be answered by scientific evidence. For example, the question of whether the 12-mile limit is important, an issue debated


throughout the controversy ought to be answered with hard facts. Inevitably we have seen that the attitude taken to the outcome nearly always reflects the preconceived Common Market attitude of the individual. We all like to feel that we are trying to be objective. I like to think, because I have not been a rigid hard-liner on the Market that I have been more objective than most. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) was one of those who have been very objective. I was inclined to congratulate him, but tonight he was singing a rather surprising tune.
It was a little difficult to understand why he was not even prepared to acknowledge that this question of what happens after 10 years is a worry to many fishermen and their representatives. I congratulate the hon. Member for getting us this debate. It certainly reflects the concern which he has for the fishing industry and which he has shown throughout the negotiations. We can say that at the beginning of the negotiations there were two extreme views. The fact that a view is extreme does not mean that it is wrong, but the view of the fishermen was that the only way to safeguard their interests was to get a 12-mile limit such as exists at present, without any fixed timescale.
The other view, put forward by pro-Marketeers was that the limits were not important because of the conservation measures which we could operate within the 12-mile limit and we should not worry —everything was all right; we would be able to conserve despite the entry of foreign vessels into our waters. We were told that the fishermen were over-reacting and being taken for a ride by the anti-Marketeers. The pro-Marketeers have successively moved their position. The more I have studied this and spoken to people the more I have become convinced that the fishermen have been right all the time and that the sensible and only thing to do was to get an indefinite 12-mile limit as we have now. That was a legitimate demand consistently made by the fishermen. I have been critical of the way in which the Government have handled these negotiations. There are a number of things which they did which puzzled me enormously, actions they took which made me suspicious. I have asked them about this and never really received a satisfactory reply. Now that the nego-

tiations are completed I hope I will get that answer.
I want to put five points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, at the beginning of the negotiations when we asked the Government to spell out what their position was, and say whether they would argue on the basis of maintaining the 12-mile limit the answer was, "We reserve our position". They did not say what they reserved. We got this vague statement. That is a minor point, but I could not think of any justification for it. I shall be interested to hear whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can justify it tonight.
Secondly, bearing in mind the importance of the 12-mile limit—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman now accepts its importance—why did he start negotiating on the basis of the six-mile limit? I have never been able to understand that. No one has put forward any cogent reason why the Government started negotiating by giving away so much.
Thirdly, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow the crucial vote on entry to be taken before these negotiations were concluded? Surely he cannot deny that his negotiating position would have been much stronger if he had said to the Council of Ministers, "Until we get a satisfactory agreement on fishing we are not prepared to take a decision on entering the Common Market". He completely weakened his position by allowing the vote on entry to be taken first. How could he argue that this matter was of vital interest to us and something on which the Government would hold out after the crucial vote on entry had been taken?
I come to the fourth and fifth points. They are more recent and more important. The fourth point was raised very lucidly by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), namely, what will be the position at the end of the 10 years? My impression was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was haggling last weekend about what the situation would be at the end of the 10 years.
There were two possible outcomes. One was that there could be a temporary


derogation from the common fisheries policy so that at the end of the 10 years the status quo was the common fisheries policy and therefore we could not veto it; we could veto only a proposal put forward by one or more of the other members of the Community. The other possible outcome was that there would be an indefinite 12-mile limit, subject to a review, but there would be no question of it automatically lapsing after 10 years, in which case we could have used the veto to stop a change from our present 12-mile limit. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about this matter on 13th December, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
In practice, whatever the legal position, we will be able in 1982 to assert in the light of the Luxembourg agreement—that is all that has happened since the Treaty of Rome was signed—the protection of our vital interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 62.]
It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to use the phrase "whatever the legal position", but we want to know the legal position. The legal position is not irrelevant. The legal position will not necessarily dictate completely what the outcome will be, but our bargaining position will depend very much on the legal position. Surely there is a legal position. After all, when we went through the negotiations and arguments put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by the other countries were we not arguing about getting a legal position which would be satisfactory from the point of view of the Community? Let us have it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman tonight. What is the legal position? There must be a legal position and surely he must know what it is.
The fifth point I want to come to is almost as important as the one I have just mentioned. It seems to me that the reason why the Government seemed to be making progress in the negotiations was not so much because of what they were doing, but because of what Norway was doing. This was the impression which the Press had. The idea was put around that the right hon. and learned

Gentleman was tagging on to Norway, that Norway was making the running, that if Norway got a good deal then Britain would get a good deal. I have said before that I did not mind if we got a good deal because of Norway; I did not mind if we got a good deal despite the efforts of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What was important to me was that we got a satisfactory agreement. That was why we on this side of the House, and hon. Members on the other side, insisted that we should not get terms worse than those agreed for Norway. I want to make what, I think, will be the most important statement I shall make this evening: I want to quote what the Minister of Agriculture said when he was speaking for the Government prior to the crucial vote on entry, when all those here concerned about this issue were hanging on his every word. What did he say on this question of Norway, on this question of seeing we got terms as good as the other applicants? This is what he said:
My answer is quite clear. We can certainly not agree to any terms for ourselves without knowing the terms which will be offered or granted to the other applicants …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1034.]
The fifth point I want to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, how do the Government reconcile what has happened with that solemn pledge given by the Minister of Agriculture prior to the crucial vote on entry?

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Does the hon. Member not realise that the statement was "without knowing the terms which will be offered"? It is not a question of agreeing or having similar terms, but simply a question of knowing.

Mr. Strang: Let me take the hon. Gentleman up on that point. Is he saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Council of Ministers will not improve the terms offered to Norway? Is he saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows exactly what terms are to be given to Norway, and has a categorical assurance from the Common Market that it will not improve them? Are we in the position now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now siding with the members of the Community against Norway on this issue?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Of course he is.

Mr. Strang: If he is, he proves my point.
How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile what has happened with that statement by the Minister of Agriculture? It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to tell us that people are not always expected to take the Government or his right hon. Friends seriously. It is one thing to say before an election that they will reduce prices at a stroke, or reduce unemployment. It is far more serious to say, in an historic debate, that something will be done and then to rat on it afterwards in this way.
Hon. Members opposite have said that we are anxious, or that anti-Marketeers are anxious, to call this a sell-out. I am not anxious to call it a sell-out. I want to know what the position is. What has been achieved for the fishermen of my constituency and for the inshore fishing industry of Scotland? The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), says that the Scottish fishermen are satisfied with what he has brought back, and he has given them reassurance. I assume that that means that he has satisfactorily answered the points which I and other hon. Members have put in this debate. If that is so, I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will do the same when he replies tonight.
I take the view that the Government have done rather better than a lot of us feared. At one stage, we thought that they would not get the 12-mile limits. Obviously, many fishermen are somewhat relieved. But it is not good enough just to get something better than we feared, when we feared something disastrous.
The struggle ahead for representatives of the fishing industry and those of us who are concerned for its interests will be to convince the Government and convince the Community that the present 12-mile limits must be maintained indefinitely. But, for the present, we have a right to expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us precisely what the legal position is and precisely what he has brought back from Brussels.

4.8 a.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

East (Mr. Strang) will forgive me if I do not follow him into his dark waters, and I hope also that my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I do not expand on the well deserved plaudits which are his due for the agreement as a whole. My concern is for a small number of my 50,000 constituents, that is, about 50 inshore fishermen who work from the port of Conway and Port Penrhyn near Bangor in North Wales. This small community is typical of many other fishing communities on the west coast.
The smallness of their number increases rather than diminishes their importance in my eyes in this context. To many, they present something of a test case of what happens, or could happen, to small groups when Britain joins the E.E.C., a policy which I personally support and voted for on 28th October, in the sincere belief that Britain as a whole, and in part, will thereby prosper greatly. I think, like the noble Lord Lord Boothby, that too many commented on the agreement before they had heard my right hon. and learned Friend's statement.
Be that as it may, some of my fishermen said that they believed that my right hon. and learned Friend, in abandoning the 12-mile limit along the Welsh coast and in Liverpool Bay, abandoned them, and I am most anxious to reassure them that it is not true. There are many in Wales, quite apart from the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and perhaps the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) and neither of their political persuasion nor mine, who are anxious to attack the policy of entry into the E.E.C. and would be delighted to point out how small communities are likely to suffer. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to pay close attention to this.
On Monday, when I asked him why he had abandoned the 12-mile limit, he said that he was concerned in the negotions with
…areas which are not already adequately covered by the base lines or in which there was very little fishing between six and 12 miles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 58.]
"Very little fishing" could, I suppose, mean the operation of a small group like my fishermen of Conway, who say that


they felt well protected before my right hon. and learned Friend concluded his agreement and now say that they feel inadequately protected. I believe that they may have misunderstood the position, and I am at this late hour asking for clarification on their behalf.
I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on Monday that there is to be a generalisation of existing rights in the areas without benefit of the six to 12 mile special protection given elsewhere. What does this mean precisely? We have heard quite a bit about Cardigan Bay. I know that the French had lobster and crawfish rights only there, and the Irish had demersal rights. Are the French, the Irish and others now to have all types of fishing rights in that area and similarly around Anglesey, where the Irish alone had rights, and in Liverpool Bay, where the French and Irish were limited to demersal rights only? Are we now to have all E.E.C. nations exercising all rights?
I was very glad, and so were my fishermen, to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's reassurance that British jurisdiction would continue to extend for 12 miles. I understand that to mean that we can now board foreign vessels to check net sizes and so on. Can we also prevent over-fishing and give extra protection, if necessary, between the six and 12 miles limits? I should like to know precisely what this exercise of jurisdiction up to 12 miles can mean.
My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to the possible benefits to fishermen of membership of the Community, and I think I know what he is referring to. French fishermen are certainly thriving within the E.E.C. and there are obviously special benefits our fishermen could obtain from the E.E.C. too.
I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend express great concern about the livelihood of British fishermen; he assured us that their livelihood was safeguarded. If the livelihood of any of them were threatened, would he give some consideration to the idea of compensation for fishermen, just as we have given consideration to compensation for apple and pear growers?
Our fishermen in Wales are not as numerous as fishermen in other parts of the country, but they are no less import-

ant; they are no less the heart and soul of their communities. Therefore, when Britain joins the E.E.C. we want to see these fishing communities fully preserved and flourishing.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Like earlier speakers, I am rather curious why there are so many Ministers present on the Government Front Bench. At this early hour of 4.15 in the morning there are present a Cabinet Minister, two Scottish Ministers, and the Chief Whip. I wonder why. I hope one of the reasons is not that they see this as an alternative to the proper debate we must have before this country signs the Treaty of Accession.
I stress this because I suspect that the importance of fisheries has not really been accepted by the Government. I am talking about entry into the Common Market and the relative importance of fisheries in the eyes of this Government. This is an important matter for the economy as a whole and, of course, for the communities around the coast. [Interruption.] The Chief Whip may not know this, but I did not speak in the Common Market debates; I left it to others. I have sat up until 4 o'clock in the morning to speak on fisheries because I think this matter is being neglected by the Government. The House will know that for some three years I was at the Scottish Office in charge of fishing matters, and my hon. Friends will know that my ancestors on both sides were ordinary fishermen. Therefore, I hope to speak a little on their behalf tonight.
I want to relate my remarks to two main problems. I wish first to ask what was meant by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement. Some of his interpretations were at variance with the interpretation given in the House of Lords. We have read the proceedings carefully and we are still confused about what it meant.
Every hon. Member on the Government back benches this morning has said, "We shall possess the veto in 1982." But the Chancellor of the Duchy has not yet commented on that. It may be that one reason for the presence of so many Ministers is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends today to make a statement to clarify this point. But as some of us understand it—and


there is a reason we think this is a correct interpretation—the common fishery policy is nominated as the basic policy of the Common Market. This has been emphasised to us by the fact that they ensured that it was the policy before we entered into negotiations. We have all commented on this point.
Why was it brought forward at this point? Surely the answer is: to make sure that the base of the future fisheries policy is the common fishery policy of the Common Market. In that case what has been secured by the Chancellor of the Duchy has been a derogation from that base. In 1982—but only if it is unanimous—we could get a continuing derogation; and a veto at that point would prevent the derogation continuing and we would revert to the common fisheries policy.
Am I right? This must be clarified. If our interpretation is right far from being the safeguard which it has been presented as over the last few days for the operation of the policy after 1982, the veto will act against us. Speaker after speaker has expressed opposing views and we have not had clarification from the Chancellor. Who is right, the Conservative back-benchers or the Opposition back-benchers? This problem has dogged the whole debate.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland met the fishermen did he explain this point to them, because it has not been explained to the House of Commons?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Throughout the negotiations I have had the complete cooperation of and consultation with the working party to which I have paid tribute. Over a matter of months they have given up a lot of their personal time to come to meet me so that I could explain it. I explained to them today how the arrangements worked and this was accepted by them.

Mr. Buchan: It has not been properly explained to the House of Lords or the House of Commons. We still do not know. It has been argued that the veto will protect our position, that if in 1982 the arrangements are not satisfactory we will have the veto. We say that this is not so. Precisely the opposite will happen as we see it, because the common fisheries policy exists and care was taken

to make sure it existed before we entered the Common Market. Therefore, what has been secured for the next 10 years—the phrase was "We must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements"—is a derogation from the common fisheries policy.
If the derogation is to continue after 1982 there must be unanimity in the Common Market. The veto at that point could be used to prevent the derogation, the continuation of this policy of the 12-mile limit in these areas, and we would then revert to the common fisheries policy. This is what we want clarified. It is absolutely crucial.
There is also the problem of the importance or otherwise which the Government places on the fishing industry. The point was made by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that the Labour side did not know how to negotiate. The worst possible way of negotiating is to say, "We intend to sign the Treaty of Accession. Now let us go on and negotiate the fisheries policy." I could not imagine a weaker position to adopt in negotiations.
The biggest weapon that we had for securing a proper fisheries negotiation was the position that we thought had been announced during the autumn by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others that, without a satisfactory fishing policy being agreed, there would be no entry. That was not the position when we were pushed into voting on 28th October before we knew whether we could achieve a satisfactory agreement. This seems to be the worst possible way of negotiating.
That is why we have a second reason for being suspicious about this Government's policy on fisheries and about what it really means. Both these matters suggest that they do not place a great deal of importance upon the fisheries policy and, therefore, that what we have seen may be a whitewashing operation. That is why, for the first time in this House, I feel compelled to speak about the Common Market. Until now, my view has been that we have heard too much about it for a good few years.
We are told that we need not be concerned about this derogation problem in 1982 since the situation may have changed by 1982. To suggest to hon. Members who represent fishing communities that


the fish may move and that there may be a change in fish habits before we reach an agreement on fishing limits is a nonstarter. Fishing limits do not follow shoals of fish. They are related to fixed boundaries. They are fixed in relation to the land mass, and not to where shoals of herring are.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that he was for three years in charge of fisheries in Scotland. Will not he agree that there have been, over the years, different areas where herring could be caught?

Mr. Buchan: Of course there have been—

Mr. Baker: That is the whole point.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, that is not the point. The limit is fixed in relation to the land mass. From the land mass, one projects 3, 6 or 12-mile limits. We have had all three, and different combinations of the three. What one cannot do is to project them out to go after a particular fishing area, and then change them when the fish move south. That is what I regard as nonsensical.
We know the basic prognostications about fish. We know that there will not be a change in eating habits. We shall not all start eating Norwegian pouting in 1982. Of course, that may be an important fish in 1982, in which case it is a pity that more protection was not given to the west coast of Lewis, because that area may be important to us if we go after Norwegian pouting as industrial fishing.
I want to spend a little time discussing the position of the Norwegians—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember what he said earlier in his remarks about there being many other hon. Members waiting to speak in this and subsequent debates.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry. I do not know how long I have been speaking. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will tell me if I have exceeded the score. I do not think that I am over it yet. I intend to keep my remarks brief. Perhaps we might check at the end of my speech. If it is found that I have been over-long, I shall apologise.
My final point concerns Norway. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to the Chamber. This has been a disgraceful operation. It is clear that Norway would not have attempted to enter the Common Market had not Britain been entering. Norway would not have applied on her own. In a sense, we felt that the Danish, Norwegian and Irish applications stood or fell with our own.
Norway depends on fish. No matter how lightly the British Government may regard fishing and no matter how low fishing comes in our economic priorities, the position is very different in Norway. It is the core and the staple of the Norwegian economy. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) said that we must not be selfish. So let us think of Norway. Norway is now placed over a barrel by this Government's action and is now faced with the choice of two evils; first, that Norway's interests of securing a common policy between ourselves, Britain and Norway, have been sacrificed—I shall examine why and how in a moment. That has gone. Norway is being offered an agreement less satisfactory than it needs for its important fishing economy, so it could choose not to enter the Common Market.
If the Norwegians do not enter the Common Market they are faced with a situation in which their major ally, Britain, will be entering the Common Market and our trade, investment policy and everything else will be orientated towards Europe. We are facing the Norwegians with the choice of two evils. It is shameful that we have done this. There was no excuse for it. There were sufficient promises that we would be sticking to a common policy. I quote the Minister of Agriculture:
We can certainly not agree to any terms for ourselves without knowing the terms which will be offered or granted to the other applicants.
The Minister continued:
I would expect that to mean that we would continue to have comparable treatment on fishing limits with the other applicants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 1034.]
Is it true that the Prime Minister wrote to the Norwegians asking them to limit their demands? If he did, I hope that the request is treated with contempt. It is disgraceful that this country, with 50


million people, should be saying this to Norway, with 3 or 4 million people and an economy that depends on fishing. I hope that it can be denied that that was done in this form.
Whether or not the Government did this, or whether the Prime Minister tried to pull Norway back down, as he moderated his almost holy point of getting into Europe, we have faced our ally, a partner in war as our partner in trade, with the choice between two evils, and it is disgraceful. It is for this reason, above all, that I have ended my long silence on the Common Market in the House. I have no wish to enter the Common Market after such a shameful piece of behaviour towards an ally.

4.33 a.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The only point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is that there is a danger if Norway fails to reach agreement, does not come into the Common Market and adopts fishing limits which may be a danger to our industry.
Many hon. Members have very much overplayed the dangers of the policy which my right hon. and learned Friend has accomplished. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) underlined the fact that he had accomplished something very much better than almost anyone had anticipated. On the other hand, we do the fishing industry a disservice if we say that everything is all right. There is a fear among fishermen that, because a certain amount has been given up, this is the beginning of a slide. They need reassurance. It is easy to quote figures and say that only a small percentage is affected. But if one happens to be a fisherman who fishes in that particular stretch of water one could lose 100 per cent. of one's catch, although the percentage of the national catch may be very small.
What worries fishermen in my part of the world are the words which, perhaps inadvertently, my right hon. and learned Friend used when he said that there was so much "theology" in this matter. What appears to me to have happened—I may be wrong—is that we have said all along that the Common Market fisheries policy is totally unacceptable, but in order to conform to the tenets of the Common

Market we have had to say that we agree to a review, which we do not agree with, in 10 years' time. It is not theology. It is double talk. The bishops would not class it in any other way.
People are worried because we have had to say that a review will be necessary, when I do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend believes that we are able to give anything away. This is the first point that needs explaining, and if the Chancellor of the Duchy can explain it he will go a long way to carrying the fishermen with him in believing that we have really achieved something far better than seemed possible a few months ago.
In his statement on Monday my right hon. and learned Friend also spoke about reaching an agreement with the Community for attempting to determine conditions for the preservation of the biological resources of the sea as soon as practicable and certainly by 1979. It is essential that this is done at the earliest possible moment, for if it is done early we will be able to produce evidence to show, at the time of the review, that it is impossible to accept a fisheries policy which comes right up to the coastline.
Whatever we say about a 6- or 12-mile limit, fishermen already accept that we are taking too much out of the sea. The sooner this investigation is done the better, and then the facts will be known, before 1982, whereupon everybody will agree that the common fisheries policy as it stands is a nonsense. We know that that is what it is, and we must prove it.
Is it possible to strengthen the conservation policing services by using the resources of the Royal Air Force? We could have photographic reconnaissance with helicopters on some ships to give us a good picture of what is going on around our coasts. We are able to obtain pictures of the moon. We should be able to arrange an adequate means of policing this matter, especially with the co-operation of the R.A.F.
If we show that we are determined to police the limits that have been agreed and if we can show that there is no possibility of the common fisheries policy being adopted in 10 years' time, then I am sure that our fishermen will accept that my right hon. and learned Friend has made a considerable achievement.

4.38 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Despite what hon. Gentlemen opposite claim have been the achievements of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, they cannot deny that there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty about what the situation will be in 1982 with regard to fisheries.
I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be frank with the House tonight. Accepting what has been arranged in relation to the common fisheries policy and the 10-year period, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall the cheers when he told the Conservative Party Conference last October that the policy included in 1970 was "utterly unsuitable" and that the United Kingdom would not sign a Treaty of Accession which would commit us to the Community's fisheries policy?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now using those words in the context of the 1982 review? When that time comes, will he state that the common fisheries policy will not possibly be acceptable. Is the Commission and Council of Ministers aware that the common fisheries policy will not be a starting point in 1982? This is a simple question which deserves a straight answer because the fishermen of Britain are waiting for the answer.
Many of us are concerned about how the negotiations have developed, not only in respect of fisheries but of matters outside the scope of this debate. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) congratulated the Government on their negotiations. But what a way to negotiate! To decide to go in, then seeing if agreement can be reached on fisheries, taking a vote on 28th October and deciding the question of fisheries in December, two months afterwards. If this is a new way of negotiation, the negotiators can keep it.
On 1st December the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a crucial statement commenting on negotiations so far. He said:
We made useful progress in some respects. The Community proposed that there should be, for 10 years, an interim régime based on a 6-mile limit with special areas going out to 12 miles.

That, to my ordinary mind, is basically the situation now, and one which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted for the next 10 years. He went on:
I had to make it clear, however, that its proposals did not go far enough to safeguard the legitimate interests of the fishing industry and did not, in our view, provide a fair overall balance of mutual advantage.
He also said:
I explained that an initial period of 10 years by itself was not sufficient…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827. c. 445–6.]
I have it in my mind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say, "Oh, but we secured a review." He will say that there will now be a review. But on 13th December he said:
Here I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 52.]
Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now telling us that the review which is supposed to take place is one which does not accept the common fisheries policy but starts from what is accepted now, and that we will not fall back from our present position? It is his duty to explain this crucial question. We want to know whether the Government have been able to obtain the kind of agreement which gives the fisheries industry a secure basis for more than just a transitional period of 10 years. The fishermen want to know what is to happen in 1982.
Will the veto be to our advantage? Does the Minister envisage the day when we will use it? Some of his hon. Friends have said tonight that they would like to see it operated. The hon. Member for Torrington had a peculiar type of veto in mind which was not concerned with the Council of Ministers. He talked about the fishermen of Devon and Cornwall who seem to have their own brand of veto against infiltration of their fishing areas. Last Monday the right hon. and learned Gentleman categorically stated:
It is not wise to talk in terms of a veto." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 580.]
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make it quite clear whether at that review the common fisheries policy will have to be accepted? Or, if we are falling back from what has been the


position so far, will we use the veto? Let us be told whether the veto will be used when the time comes.
We entered these negotiations jointly with Norway, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland. Norway took our intentions in good faith, and the Chancellor of the Duchy repeatedly said that we would not accept worse terms than Norway. Are these the terms that will be offered to Norway? if Norway has better terms, he is going back on his word.
Furthermore, what was in the letter from the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Norway? Was it a plea to water down Norway's case so that our position would be easier and the attempt to sign the Treaty before Christmas would succeed? If I am wrong, the Chancellor can put the record straight and then no one will doubt his word.
Another important point is to what extent will our industry be bound by E.E.C. regulations, particularly the marketing regulations? Will we accept them automatically and without debate, or will they be part of the legislation presented to us? They need special attention.
Even the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts), in a quiet and gentlemanly way, expressed concern about Wales. The Western Mail said on 14th December that "if these terms are accepted, two out of three of the main fishing grounds of the fishermen of Milford Haven and Pembrokeshire will no longer have the protection of a 12-mile limit". The question is asked in the Principality, why was no part of Wales' coastline deemed suitable for a 12-mile limit?
Although our fishing industry is far smaller than that in other parts of the Kingdom, it has 365 vessels, and 400 or 500 people are directly involved in the industry, which brings to the economy of Wales £1 million a year, which is no mean figure. Finally, the Chancellor must make it clear how he sees the situation in 1982. I am not interested in where the fish will be, which is how some hon. Members were trying to camouflage the situation. Has the Chancellor told the Council of Ministers that even in 1982 the common fisheries policy is unacceptable? Has he told the Council of Ministers that what we have so far agreed we will not go back on and that we shall want to improve on it? Has

he informed them that any attempt to have a fall-back situation will be vetoed immediately?

4.51 a.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate represent maritime constituencies. I, however, represent an inland seat, so perhaps I am able to approach the question a little more objectively.
Our fishing industry employs about 20,000 people and last year it had a total catch worth £66 million. As an industry it is heavily subsidised. It also obtains gratis many maritime services provided by the Government, including fisheries protection by the Royal Navy and environmental prediction services. When we compare 20,000 people with the total work force of this country and £66 million with the gross national product, they represent very small proportions.
I do not think that any prudent Government could consider whether or not we should join the E.E.C. solely on the fate of the fishing industry, though some hon. Members have been disposed to attempt just that. Nevertheless, fishing is a major source of livelihood for people living on our coasts and there are not many other employment prospects open to them. Therefore, people living inland owe them an obligation. But, irrespective of the particular arrangements which have been negotiated by the Government on fisheries, the fishing industry of this country has nothing—I repeat, nothing—to lose and everything to gain by Britain adhering to the Treaty of Rome.
To put this over quickly, as time as running out, I ask hon. Members to imagine that they are fish. It is not very difficult if one holds one's breath to imagine that one is an itinerant creature swimming freely about the oceans on passage for one's old haunts and breeding grounds. While en route one will be greatly influenced by environmental factors: sunlight, salinity, nutrients, temperature, currents, the nature of the sea floor and, of course, predators. But one will not take any notice, if indeed one noticed them, of the artificial frontiers which we humans have drawn in the oceans.
My point is that effective conservation of the marine environment is essentially an international exercise. If we are to


preserve the life and health of the seas around our coasts, we must establish a régime there which reflects the nature and character of the sea itself, and not by extending political barriers of the kind we have on dry land.
The whole error of what I have heard in the debate tonight and, indeed, in the whole of the debate regarding fisheries and the E.E.C., is that fish have been considered in isolation from the environment in which they exist and divorced from other activities which go on there. Ocean management is an extraordinarily complex issue, and effective conservation requires a high degree of political integration between the countries attempting it. I do not think that it matters two hoots what happens in 10 years' time, because everyone involved in marine affairs knows that in the next 10 years the whole concept of freedom of fishing on the high seas will disappear from large areas of the oceans. The whole idea of fishery limits will come to be seen as obsolete, and it will be replaced by a system of quotas initially and perhaps later by a licensing system.
It is precisely because the Common Market provides for the high degree of political integration required that I believe we can achieve conservation in European waters. European unity, in fact, provides us with the opportunity effectively to conserve fisheries from over-exploitation and contamination by pollution. Unless we succeed in that, there will be very few fish to quarrel about in 10 years' time. We have had to make concessions in the negotiations, but I believe that the balance of advantage is decisively in our favour.

4.57 a.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), who gave us the opportunity to debate this very important matter, and all of us who have listened to the debate feel that it has been very worth while so far. I add that qualification, because very important questions have been put to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and before we can say that it has been a worth while debate we shall have to hear his answers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been left in no doubt about our

concern, beginning with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), reinforced by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) and Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), all making essentially the same point and putting the same question to him: what will happen at the end of the 10-year transitional period that he has negotiated?
I shall put certain propositions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and see how far I have been able to decipher the mysteries of his mind in interpreting some of the things he has told us before, and I will then put my own interpretation of the agreement to him for his comment and perhaps for his assent.
The fishing industry is obviously of great importance to many people in this country, not only those directly concerned with the industry, the fishermen themselves, but to many communities associated with their work. Even more widely, there is something in the point that we are an island, maritime nation, and the business of fishing is to us of rather greater importance than it is in terms purely of its economic size and contribution to the national economy. There is a strong national sentiment in favour of ships and fishing and the sea. Therefore, this is a matter of great interest and importance to the whole nation—the urban population as well as those directly concerned.
We can understand what has happened only if we repeat the unhappy story of the Six's attempt to work out a common fisheries policy for themselves and then their efforts to impose it upon Britain and the other applicant nations. The starting point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan pointed out, was the agreement by the Six to have a common fisheries policy, almost to the day before our formal negotiations began, and then the conclusion of their common fishing policy in the autumn of that same year, 1970. It is extraordinary that the Six, knowing full well that the four applicant countries had major fishing interests whereas among the Six themselves fishing has been of comparatively minor importance, should have done this. One is driven to believing that the Six made this common fisheries


policy effort not so much to solve problems amongst themselves, such as these were, but to take up a strong bargaining position as against the applicants in the new negotiations.
The Government took a gamble in leaving the fisheries part of the negotiations till the end. I thought at one stage that the gamble would come off inasmuch as, the Government having made enormous concessions over the whole range of matters negotiated up to last summer, a reasonable settlement of the fisheries problem could be expected as a kind of consolation prize for all the defeats and almost humiliations which the Government had suffered. One might have thought it almost inconceivable that the French, having won probably the greatest diplomatic and financial triumph in their history at our expense, would put all that in jeopardy for what after all is a preposterous claim of access to our fishing rights. If that was in the Government's mind, they were disappointed, because they under-estimated the determination of the French, who as usual took the lead, to squeeze the utmost advantage out of their bargaining situation.
In judging what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has brought back, we do not have to look hard to find the right tests by which to assess the quality and worthwhileness of the agreement, because he himself provided us with those tests in his recent statement. I refer in particular to the statement he made on 11th November when he first turned in some detail to this question. There he laid down the crucial aim of his policy. It was:
… however long the initial period there must be arrangements on a continuing basis subject to review.
These words were not lightly plucked from the air, they are important, serious words carrying a great weight of meaning. If anyone is in doubt I will explain further in a moment. That was his first test.
During the course of questions following the statement we got the second test by which we could judge whether he had come back with a good bargain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) put to him that he should not accept any arrangement less favourable than that secured by Norwegian fishermen. He replied:

That means that we would expect to receive comparable treatment to Norway and the other candidate countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 1239–1245.]
If I may make a passing reference to the hon. Member for Banff who rather overdid the panegyric, he made almost the same point then and got virtually an identical reply—that the Chancellor would "ensure comparable and fair treatment between all the parties concerned."
Those are the two tests provided by the Chancellor just over four weeks ago. The subsequent history is a little embarrassing, at least for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We find that in his statement of 1st December the retreat has already begun. It is quite a substantial retreat. We find this phrase:
I do not think that there will be too much difficulty about the 10-year interim period, but I cannot say that at the end of the 10-year period there must automatically be continuation of the same arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 454.]
That was quite a change from "continuing arrangements subject to review". Then in the allusion to Norway instead of terms comparable with those of Norway, in a reply to one of his right hon. Friends it became "broadly comparable". The movement had begun on 1st December. What do we find on 13th December? There we can see how far the retreat had gone. We find no mention now of "continuing arrangement subject to review". On the contrary, there is a statement about the maintenance of the status quo for a decade followed by a fair and open-ended review. That is considerably different.
As for Norway with whom we were to have comparable arrangements—and broadly comparable only a fortnight later —the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Norway's negotiations are carried on by the Norwegian Government. I cannot answer in this House for why the Norwegian Government are not yet satisfied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 58.]
What a remarkable movement in so short a time.
I come to the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) alluded—the strange incident of the Prime Minister's letter to the


Prime Minister of Norway. We have nothing definite about it, but from the way things, or bits of them, sometimes appear in the newspapers, we learn that such a letter was sent. We infer—and it has not been denied—that the purpose was to persuade the Norwegian Government to help the British Government out of the embarrassment of sticking by their own words and of sticking by Norway.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Rubbish.

Mr. Shore: Then we can have a denial of it, but that is the inference drawn throughout Europe and not only in this country. If that is not true, the hon. Gentleman had better leave it to his right hon. and learned Friend to try to provide the answer.
Looking back, what can one say? It seems to me that two matters of great substance have arisen. One is the question of what happens after the transitional period. We know that there is to be a review at the end of 10 years. We know that the review is to be carried out by the Commission, and later
… the Council, acting on a proposal of the Commision, will examine the arrangements which could follow the derogations in force until 31st December, 1982".
I stress the word "until", because it makes the point clear that the derogation ends on 31st December, 1982.
But the point of all the questions put by my hon. Friends is, what happens if, following the review, policy proposals are put forward which are disagreed between this country and perhaps other applicant countries and by existing countries in the Community? It is at this point that it matters enormously whether we have negotiated a derogation from the basic rules and, therefore, whether at the end of that derogation we revert, unless the Council unanimously agrees to the contrary, to the existing basic regulation; or whether it is as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sought to make it in the quotation which I read at the beginning of my speech from his statement in November, namely, that there would be a continuing arrangement by this country subject to review. This is the heart of the matter—the question of which way the veto is to be applied. [Interruption.] This is very important and I am not seeking to score a point.

Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I find this rather heavy going at this time in the morning and I am seeking, as I am sure the House, the public and the fishermen are seeking, great clarity because it is the fishermen's future and livelihoods which are at stake.
I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a certain interpretation of what has happened and what the positions were. I refer to the report in l'Europe of 29th November, 1971, dealing with statements made by M. Deniau, who is the Commissioner dealing with the issue of fisheries in the discussions. I should like to read to the House what l'Europe said:
M. Deniau stressed the distinction which is to be made between the situation of Norway on the one hand and of Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark on the other. The three last-named countries accept the principle that the Community régime of unrestricted fishing must be introduced in the end. The negotiations are to settle the length and nature of the transitional period and exemptions. Norway, on the othed hand, is asking for permanent exception.
I should like to know—I think the House would like to know—whether this is an accurate report of the position, because if it is, as, I think, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, it really does put his own explanation under direct challenge.
The other point which I would like to make is, again, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West took up, and that is the way in which Norway has been treated in these negotions. I must say that one is almost driven to ask the question whether the Government now believe that Norway is to be a member of the Common Market, whether they attach great importance to Norway's joining the Common Market, or whether they think that this is a matter solely of concern to the Norwegian Government.
I must put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a point which has certainly been put to me, and that is, that not all the Six are, or have been, enthusiastic about Norway's joining the Common Market. There is a school of thought which would prefer Norway to remain outside, and one of the things which worry me is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may—I would hope, unwittingly—have helped to bring about a situation in which Norway has been


isolated from the other applicants and placed in precisely that dilemma to which my hon. Friend referred, the dilemma, that, whichever way she goes, the choice is painful and the road is hard.
So I do not see—I really do not see—the causes or reasons why hon. Members on that side should wish to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his fisheries negotiations. I see, on the contrary, many reasons why the House, and even more the public and the fishermen, should have very great concern as to what has been negotiated for them, and particularly as to the unsatisfactory and dangerously loose arrangements which will follow on the end of the transitional period.
I conclude by saying that I think that it would be a disgrace if the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Government were to go ahead and sign a treaty of accession before this House has had a full and proper opportunity, at a reasonable time, to discuss this very important matter.

5.20 a.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I echo what the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said in his first few sentences. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) for initiating what has been a valuable, interesting and fairly wide-ranging debate. I hope that it will be regarded as having provided a suitable opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members interested in this matter to clarify the position. It was plain from the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite that some clarification is required.
Perhaps, at the outset, I should make clear that we have never opposed the concept of a common fisheries policy. Indeed, we have always thought that the emphasis which it places on conservation and marketing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff referred, holds out great potential advantages.
I feel that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) was right when he said that a great deal of apprehension was aroused by the timing of the introduction of the common fisheries policy. I have always been prepared to accept that that was to some extent a coincidence, and the Community had

been trying in a series of meetings to establish its common fisheries policy. However, I put it to the Community countries that not everyone believed me when I said that; and, in so far as they did introduce it at that time, I think it did undermine to some extent some people's confidence in the motives for which it was introduced.
We reserved our position from the outset. Our substantive objections, as my hon. Friend said, were really directed to the fact that in its detailed application, while it might be suitable for a Community of Six, it was manifestly not suitable for a Community of Ten with much more extensive fishing interests. In the course of the negotiations, we have secured agreement that adjustments are necessary in the marketing regulation in order to meet the needs of the far wider area, and we have discussed, as I have reported to the House on other occasions, the need to make adjustments as regards withdrawal prices, prices for remoter areas, powers of producer organisations, frozen fish, grading arrangements, and so on. With those adjustments, I think that the fishermen of this country will find, as the fishermen of France did when they acquiesced in return for some changes in their own fishery limits, that there is considerable economic advantage. At least, that must be our hope.
Our main criticisms were directed to the provisions relating to access. I believe that the arrangements which we have now made for protecting our fishing limits provide adequate safeguards, bearing in mind—this is important—that we retain full jurisdiction up to 12 miles from the base lines all round our coast.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) took what he described as a rather conspiratorial view of what had taken place in this regard. He thought that the negotiations had been held up deliberately until after the vote.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not say that. I said that I did not regard the delay in the timing of the discussion on fisheries policy as sinister, but I added that some people who took a con-conspiratorial view of politics might take a different view, and I went on to describe what it was.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful for that clarification from the hon. Gentleman.


I am glad that he does not share the view which was expressed by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that these matters had been held up deliberately. Of course, that was not so. One of the problems in regard to fisheries regulation was that it was essential that we should have a multi-national negotiation; it fell into place naturally in that context. The right hon. Member for Stepney, on the other hand, thought that it was all a gamble, and that was the reason why it was delayed.
The trouble with the right hon. Member for Stepney is that he is not looking for success in these negotiations. It was typical of his approach to the whole matter that he should refer today, as he has often done in the past, to the humiliating terms we have accepted. A majority of the members of the Labour Cabinet in which he served believed that the terms were fair and reasonable, and they have not only said so publicly but have voted to that effect. A great deal of damage has been done, and a great deal of needless anxiety has been caused to our fishermen, by the way in which so many people have been ready to cry "sellout" before they have even read the terms.
It is interesting now that, as the fishermen are having the terms explained to them and are having an opportunity to read them, they are saying, "We are satisfied that it is not a sell-out." They may have reservations, but certainly the Scottish fishermen said today that, now that they have had a look at what it is all about, they understand that steps we have taken to safeguard their position. What my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Sir J. Gilmour) said about creating confidence in the fishing industry is tremendously important. People who have more interest in opposing our entry into the Common Market than defending the rights of fishermen do a great disservice to our fishermen.
The limits which we have negotiated substantially protect our inshore fishermen. The figures given for Scotland by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff are broadly correct. My hon. Friend was right in saying that the value of the Scottish catch between 0 and 12 miles in

1970 was about £16 million and that this represented about 5·5 million cwt. The value of the catch between six and 12 miles off the coast of Scotland, where we sought only a 12 mile arrangement with the Community because we are protected by a base line particularly through the Minches and the Clyde, is estimated at only £600,000, representing about 160,000 cwt. For the United Kingdom as a whole, about 95 per cent. of inshore fishing by value will under these arrangements receive the same degree of protection as is afforded at present.
That does not mean that the fishermen who are concerned in the areas in which only 5 per cent. of our inshore fishing is done have had their interests brushed aside. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) that we were not thinking in terms of just a small number of fishermen. We were thinking in terms of whether or not the areas concerned were adequately protected by the base line, or whether there was a relatively small amount of fishing between the six and 12 miles. What the generalisation of existing rights means is that in those areas between six and 12 miles which we have agreed to share, there are existing historic rights which will be generalised among other members of the Community. Some members, such as Luxembourg and Italy, are perhaps unlikely ever to exercise those rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff went on to deal with the complete control of conservation which we have, as a result of maintaining full jurisdiction over the whole 12 miles. That is a matter of the utmost importance, and I am sure right hon. and hon. Members have listened with interest to the speeches which have been made on the subject of policing, about which my right hon. Friend, as I told the House on 13th December, will shortly be making a further statement.
The House was also concerned about the need for increased fishery protection generally; my hon. Friends the Members for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) spoke about this matter. Great attention should be paid to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East, about what will happen in the next 10 years. We are not


dealing with a static situation. We ourselves need a certain flexibility in this arrangement.
Sometimes the Treaty of Rome is attacked because the arrangements are permanent; and then, in a case like this, people complain because the arrangement is not permanent. But I have said time and again that we have never sought permanent arrangements. On the other hand, in a matter like this we have sought arrangements which are more than simply transitional.
Often in dealing with a number of issues in these negotiations we have been able to say "It is all right because, within a period of three, five years, or whatever it may be, we can adapt and at the end of that period we shall accept the policy as it is now." That is not what we have said on fishing. We have accepted the idea of an arrangement for a decade which is virtually the status quo—more than many people thought we were going to get, or even asked for, at an earlier stage of the negotiations—and then an open review in the circumstances of the time. And the circumstances of the time will be very different from the circumstances of today.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would have been here tonight if he had not been attending a fisheries conference in Moscow which is concerned with conservation, at which ideas such as the quota, to which reference has been made in this debate, are being considered. In 1973 there will be the Conference on the Law of the Sea—and we have the arrangement with the Community for a review of conservation of the biological resources of the sea before 1979, at the latest; but we hope that it will be at the earliest practicable date. It is only after all that has taken place that we have further agreed that before the end of 1982 the enlarged Community, after studying a report on the situation then obtaining, with particular reference to the economic and social conditions of inshore areas and the state of the fish stocks, will examine the arrangements which could follow what we have negotiated for the first ten years.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that for a period of many months up to

the end of last week he elevated to a high level the question of having a binding agreement which went beyond 1982. Why has he now abandoned that position and regarded that abandonment as an achievement?

Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Gentleman studies carefully all I have said over the years in the course of the negotiations, he will see that I have held to the view, quite tenaciously, that we should not seek arrangements which are permanent, but on the other hand wanted something that was more than merely transitional. I made that clear on 1st December in an answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Rippon: No, I am sorry. This is my case on this and I must emphasise it. Hon. Gentlemen have made their attacks upon it. I assert that from the outset I have made clear to the Community that a transitional period, however long, would not in itself be enough. I also said that there must be provided a review which would be all-embracing, applying to the whole of our coast line, and not just to special areas, however extensive; and that it would have to take account, as I said to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock on 1st December, of all the circumstances prevailing at the time—social, economic and the state of stocks. And that is virtually the review the Community has accepted.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We are now beginning to get on to the specific points about which we asked earlier. If I understand what the Chancellor of the Duchy is saying on the question of derogation, the open review is connected with the whole of our coastline. Does the open review extend to the possibility of changing the concept of free access in fishing up to the beaches?

Mr. Rippon: It will be an open review. We could either restrict access or we could seek to extend it in the circumstances of the time. It may be, as some of my hon. Friends have said, that we will be talking in those days of more extensive limits. On the other hand we have to balance the interests of our deep-sea fishermen as well in these matters. We have to accept that over the next decade there are going to be considerable changes and that in the


timetable there are a number of events—conferences and reviews—dealing particularly with conservation that are going to help determine what takes place in the review before 1982.

Mr. James Johnson: Would the Chancellor now do me the courtesy of attempting to answer my question which was also put by Lord Hoy in the House of Lords? Will he make a statement in this House confirming the statement made by Baroness Tweedsmuir that we would have a veto in the event of the circumstances not suiting us?

Mr. Rippon: Obviously I am coming to that. We must take matters in their right order. I maintained in relation to the nature of the review, and the Community ultimately accepted it, that anything less than the open review which we sought would meet neither the anxieties nor the needs of those dependent on fishing for their livelihoods.
It is most important to remember the history of the review clause itself. This is part of the background to the argument about what happens in 1982. First, at the meeting on 29th November the Community agreed to a review but wished to limit its application. They first proposed that the review should be limited to the special areas—the 12-mile limit areas—only. If we had accepted that, we would have accepted, in effect, that in 1982, except for those special areas, we would accept the limits laid down in the fisheries regulation. I said that was not satisfactory unless they would allow 95 per cent. of our coast to be treated as a special area.
At about 11 a.m. the next day they said that they were prepared to widen the review to areas essentially dependent on fishing. They said they were prepared to add part of the coast of Scotland to the Orkneys and Shetland. This I rejected as inadequate.
There were therefore two things to settle on 11th and 12th of December: first the review clause which I said must apply generally to the whole of our coastline—that meant we must be treated as a wholly special area—and then there were the 12-mile limits.
If anyone sees the story of what we were offered first and what we secured at the end they will see we made con-

siderable progress on both fronts. We started talking about Norway being a special case because Norway has a long area of coast essentially dependent upon fishing. She also has extensive 12-mile limits which she has exercised without historic rights. Norway sought to be a special case, and the Community was prepared to treat her as a special case, being dependent on fishing with virtually no hinterland.
All along, we have said that that is the wrong way to approach this matter, because people who are dependent on fishing must be considered in the context of their general economic and social conditions. It is no good telling fishermen that, because there are factories in the vicinity, they are not essentially dependent upon fishing for their livelihood. So now the whole case which was argued about areas essentially dependent upon fishing has fallen to the ground, because we have secured this open and general review.
That is why I say that there is no question of our having accepted a review clause limited to areas essentially dependent upon fishing and then falling back automatically to the beaches in respect of areas where we are prepared to concede the rights between six and 12 miles.
A certain amount of difficulty always arises in our discussions about these negotiations between the law and the practice of the Community. It is a very long argument, and I want to deal with it because it is the nub of many of the criticisms which are made. Before coming to that, however, perhaps I might make one important comment about Norway's position.
Constitutionally, Norway and her Government are responsible for the conduct of their own negotiations. That does not mean that we have not been in close touch with them throughout, nor that we are in any way unsympathetic to Norway's special position. We have never denied that Norway has a special position and is dependent upon fishing perhaps to a greater extent than the United Kingdom is in terms of total economy. But, in my view, that did not mean that Norway was entitled to very different treatment from that of the other applicant countries. We have secured a review clause which is satisfactory not only to


us but to Denmark and the Republic of Ireland. I hope that it will be understood in Norway to be a pretty wide-ranging clause which should give to all the countries a fair protection. Equally, there is no reason why the Community should not be generous in regard to Norway's claims for her 12-mile limit. I am sure that none of us would wish to restrict that aspect of Norway's case in any way.
Some hon. Members have suggested that Norway may get a better offer than we have got. I hope that she will get as good an offer as any that we have received. But, assuming that the Community puts its offer in different terms, we and the other applicants will be consulted about that offer and we shall be able to make up our minds at the time.
I was glad to hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite making the point that we want Norway to become a full member of the Community. We can quite well afford to see generous terms accorded to Norway now that we can be quite satisfied that our own essential fishing interests are adequately safeguarded. We do not need to have the same terms as Norway, but we can be satisfied that we have comparable terms, unless something quite extraordinarily different is offered—

Mr. Buchan: There are two very serious points. One is the veto, and we must come to that. The second concerns Norway. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood the charge. It is not good enough to say that we hope Norway will get good terms. The charge is that, by the agreement that we have made, we have worsened the possibility of Norway getting satisfactory arrangements.

Mr. Rippon: That is not true. Norway has not yet settled with the Community. She rather indicated that she did not want to settle until we had settled ourselves. Norway has not settled the extent of her coastline to which 12-mile limits should apply, and I see no reason why that treatment could not be generous.
I come now to the effect of the review clause, about which the right hon. Member for Stepney and others have expressed anxieties. The question is how we protect our vital interests in the 1980s in the light of that review. It is no good doing what the hon. Member for Cardigan did and simply attacking the Community, as

does the right hon. Member for Stepney to some extent, as being ruthless people trying to drive an unfair bargain and not to be trusted. Listening to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite one would not believe that we were negotiating with friends and allies, and, let us remember, friends and allies whose Community the Labour Government applied to join. Therefore, it is essential to understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, the nature of the Community we are joining and the way it works in practice.
The essence of Community practice has always been to recognise the vital national interests of the countries of which it is composed, because otherwise the work of the Community would be rendered impossible and the Community would fall apart.
No one has expressed the position more clearly, with respect, than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. On 17th November, 1966, he said:
In judging a written constitution, it is more important to examine the way in which it works and operates when it becomes a living constitution—to examine the practices which have grown up under it and the manner in which those who have to operate it do operate it, to examine the common law, as it were, rather than the statute law—than to be obsessed by perhaps literal interpretations of the original constitution and its wording.
As far as the Treaty of Rome is concerned, it is a question of convention and the way in which it has worked or looks like working, and this is of great importance for us. Four years ago, we had much less experience of these things and perhaps we could not—certainly not all of us—have foreseen that it would develop in this way.
Then again of importance—and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quite fairly referred to this—there was the Luxembourg compromise, which was reached early this year. That is highly relevant to any assessment of how the constitution really works rather than, as I have said, basing oneself on the literal interpretation of the wording. The Luxembourg compromise is not part of the treaty, but it is of the greatest importance to anyone who seeks to examine the way in which the Community, with or without Britain, is likely to operate in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 762.]
As the right hon. Member for Stepney said—and, I think, the hon. Member for Cardigan—we have had to negotiate to join the Community as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman leader of the


Opposition used to explain that very well. Having adopted the Treaty and the procedures under it, when one is a full member one has the benefit of the common law, the Luxembourg Agreement and the rest.
The position where questions of veto are concerned is often misleading. The position was clearly stated by the Prime Minister on 24th May, following discussions with President Pompidou. The Prime Minister then said that President Pompidou and he
… were in agreement that the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of co-operation in such a Community requires that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 24th May. 1971; Vol. 818, c. 32.]
In my statement to the House on 13th December I said that I was confident that when the fair and open-ended review which we had negotiated took place, the Government of the day would continue to safeguard fisheries as a vital national interest. I went on to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East that the arrangements we had negotiated was not a suspended sentence and that we should
…be able adequately to safeguard our vital fishing interests in the future as we have safeguarded them now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 57.]
[Interruption.] I cannot give hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions. But if, contrary to all practice and precedent, the members of the enlarged Community failed 10 years from now to reach agreement on the arrangements which could follow the present derogation—and a derogation is what it is—there would clearly be a major crisis involving the coherence of the Community itself.

Mr. Shore: This is at the heart of the matter. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that once a nation becomes a member of the Community it is then able to disregard those existing regulations and arrangements which are part of the law of the Community, if it judges that action to be best for that nation's special or vital interests? Or is he saying that the right of national veto exists only over new policy which is emerging within the Community? I hope he will

answer this, because it is extremely important.

Mr. Rippon: I am saying that we must draft the substance of the agreements which we have negotiated in terms which bring about our adherence to the Treaty of Rome. That often looks rather stark, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition used to say that one must look at the practice and common law; but only when one has become a full member and has accepted the obligations of the Treaty of Rome as drafted can one get the benefit of the practice and common law.
We have in effect said, "There are certain things that we can accept at once, while for some other things, such as the common agricultural policy, we require a transitional period, and at the end of that period we shall accept the C.A.P. as it is now or as it evolves in the framework of the enlarged Community." But we are not saying that we cannot deal with that in the end.
On a certain very limited number of matters we have said that we require special treatment. This applies to, for example, sugar, New Zealand and fisheries. It is against that background that we have put down a marker, as it were, on certain matters—as I say, sugar, New Zealand and fisheries—and have said that a transitional arrangement is not enough; but that we are prepared to accept that at the end of 10 years there shall be a genuine, open review, following on all the other things that have gone on in relation to conservation and so on. Then, we have said, we can look at the subject together, see what the situation looks like and see what needs to be done —remembering that it is much easier to negotiate from inside than from outside.
I do not believe that when that review comes to take place—taking part in it will be not only ourselves but Ireland, Denmark and, I hope, Norway as full members and represented also in the Commission—it will be contrary to our interests; or that the Council of Ministers will be unaware of the problems. As I have said, I do not believe that we will have a situation at that time, with all of us involved, when, after the review, there will be a cry of "Back to the beaches."

Mr. Buchan: But what if there is?

Mr. Rippon: I cannot prejudge the attitude of this or any other country at that time. We cannot be sure that the countries which have now negotiated and agreed a 12-mile limit—those countries now include France, in addition to the applicants—will not desire some sort of change, perhaps an extension or a restriction. We cannot say what the views of other countries will be.
I wish finally and clearly to say that no future British Government could in practice be forced into arrangements which in their judgment failed to safeguard our vital fishing interests as they then defined them.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Mr. Robert Hughes.

Mr. James Johnson: Before the Chancellor of the Duchy sits down, may I ask him, as he was in full flight when—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister had resumed his seat and I had called Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, can he say specifically whether or not the Six have, in effect, scrapped the existing common fisheries policy which they rushed through so quickly in a very obvious attempt to gain access to our waters?

Mr. Buchan: Before the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sits down, may I ask another question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister appears to have sat down. Mr. Ridsdale.

SEASIDE TOWNS (UNEMPLOYMENT)

5.55 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: My object in raising the question of high unemployment in seaside towns is to draw to the attention of the Government the serious problem which exists and which has been growing steadily worse over the last seven years. The rates of unemployment have been gradually building up until they are now double what they were in 1964.
In the seaside town of Clacton-on-Sea we now have a rate of unemployment of over 8 per cent. Unemployment is worse among males, for whom the rate is 12 per cent. What is even more serious is that there are some 20 seaside towns with a percentage of unemployment higher than that of Clacton. With a further six inland towns, these represent the highest rates of unemployment in the country, St. Ives having 17 per cent., 22 per cent. of whom are males. All these towns are in development areas or special develop-areas except Clacton, Margate, Mablethorpe and Rye.
My first point, therefore, is to underline the high rate of unemployment in Clacton and some of the seaside towns of North-East Essex, and to ask the Government to give the same consideration to this area as they would to a development area or a special development area. I know that some of my figures are for winter, and that in summer there is considerable seasonal employment which brings down the rate fairly considerably. Nevertheless, even in the summer the problem of unemployment is still serious. I am concerned particularly with the high rates of unemployment among the over-55s. I am sure that the time has come to set up a special committee to look into this problem of high rates of unemployment in seaside towns, and particularly in the over 55 age group. I am informed that in Clacton half the present high rate of 12 per cent. male unemployment consist of those over 55.
Obviously, I must, in the first place, welcome the national measures taken by the Government, such as taxation reductions amounting to £1,400 million in a full year, the halving of S.E.T., which has been such an encouragement to the hotel and guest house trade, the £150 million being allowed in industry for accelerated depreciation, and the £450 million in extra public expenditure up to 1975. Obviously, everything the Government can do to encourage growth will help. I trust that we can expect further help along these lines in the Budget; and help to encourage the tourist industries.
Naturally, however, I am concerned about the practical measures which the Government can take now to help with the serious problem in North-East Essex. First, I thank the Government for the two recent I.D.C.s which have been given.


This step will find employment for an additional 60 men in Clacton. I must say that the granting of these I.D.C.s is in marked contrast to the policy of the former Labour Government, which refused in 1964–65 an I.D.C. for Phillips Developments. This would have been of considerable help in finding employment in our area. Alas, in those years there were other refusals as well.
In the last seven years the accent has been on helping areas other than Clacton, with the consequence that our position has continued to deteriorate until there is now double the 1964 rate of unemployment. This Christmas, over 1,000 men will be out of work in Clacton, and over 100 women. I press the Government to give any help they can with further I.D.C.s, and to encourage mixed light and diverse industry in our area.
We do not want unrestricted industrial development, but necessary development to meet the needs of people in these difficult areas. Naturally, we are watching closely the result of the public inquiry and the Minister's decision on the Bath-side development project in Harwich, which is such an obvious growth area for the Continent and the E.E.C.
I welcome the decision to make the road between Harwich and Colchester a trunk road. Can a start be made on road improvements between Colchester and Clacton? I hope that decisions will be made with an eye to helping with employment. This is why last year I deprecated the cutting of grant aid to the railways. This not only cuts the services and increases the fares but also causes a loss of employment. There is a considerable fear that further railway cuts are in the pipeline. I hope that the Minister will deny this.
Would he also turn his mind to the pledge of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to rebuild all the pre-1903 primary schools? There are still 16 in my constituency to be brought into the programme. Why cannot this be expedited, since it would help considerably with employment?
The coastal area of North-East Essex requires an increase in office development to arrest the increasingly costly and exhausting journey to London and other centres of employment. In addition to

these local problems, I hope that we shall be able to approach the problems of the seaside towns as a whole, for this is where serious sectors of high unemployment exist.
I am sure that the real solution lies in a combination of measures, particularly in facing the problem of the over-65s. That is why I want a Committee to report on the extent of this unemployment and to consider practical ways to help. Nevertheless, I trust that the Government's overall measures will lead to growth and expansion and I hope that they will direct their minds to trying to solve the high unemployment problem of Clacton. If they can help with some of the methods I have mentioned, at least some of our difficulties, particularly in the Clacton area, can be overcome.

6.2 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for raising this important subject, albeit at this late hour. He is right to draw attention to a problem which is very different from that of the older industrial areas. It often attracts less publicity. He is also right to emphasise that it is a long-standing problem.
Although seaside towns have their own individuality, there is a common thread of concern running through the problem. The pattern of holiday-making in the British Isles is changing. More people are holidaying abroad. Although this country in turn is attracting more people from overseas, they tend to go to parts of the country other than the traditional seaside resorts. Wider car ownership has made the short stay touring and single day visits popular.
Although many are still in favour of the traditional fortnight by the sea, it is by no means so universal a form of holiday as it was—and I can remember enjoying it myself. The resort towns have made strenuous efforts to adapt to this changing pattern and to grasp the opportunities presented by providing facilities for business conferences, exhibitions, and so on. These are valuable. They are often off-season activities but the fact remains that unemployment in some seaside towns is lowest in the summer and highest in the winter. For example, unemployment in Clacton in December


was 8·5 per cent. whereas last June it was 4·5 per cent.
It is worth pointing out that restrictions on the numbers of foreign workers entering the country for jobs in the hotel and catering industry will give rise to more job opportunities for residents of the seaside towns. It would in any case be wrong to suggest that the hotel and catering industry in seaside towns does not have great potential for expansion in a flourishing economy.
Many seaside towns are giving thought to means of diversifying job opportunities. I was glad that my hon. Friend referred to office development in the service sphere, because decentralisation of office employment to coastal towns can provide a useful number and variety of jobs, and many seaside towns are doing all that they can to attract employment in this sphere.
The House will be aware that the Government are currently undertaking a review of the Headquarters work of Government Departments to see whether more of this can be dispersed away from London—I believe that this is the first time that such a review has taken place—with the object of seeing where this can best be located. This is a complex task, and it will take some time before it is completed and the Government are in a position to announce decisions. However, the work is going on.
Another method of attracting employment is by industrial development. We must recognise the difficulties in this respect, because industry and resort facilities do not always go well together. But there are many successful industrial enterprises which contribute to the well-being of the resort towns in which they are situated.
In all consideration of attracting jobs to seaside towns the Government must also give special consideration to the problems of the older industrial areas. These areas suffer from a considerable degree of industrial decay and dereliction. Although unemployment percentages are unacceptably high in many seaside towns, the numbers involved are often not so large. This is not a matter for complacency or just for debating. I recognise that an unemployed man in a seaside town faces the same frustrations and difficulties as his opposite number in Glasgow or the Welsh valleys. But we cannot ignore the fact that, in considering location in a

seaside town, as in any other place, an industrialist will be concerned to know the extent of the pool of unemployed labour from which he can recruit his work force. He may have in mind the thought—for which there is some supporting evidence—that the numbers registering as unemployed in some seaside towns include a significant proportion of people who are in receipt of an occupational pension.
I am glad that my hon. Friend drew attention to the characteristic of seaside towns that a number of older people are on the unemployed list. For example, a survey by the Department of Employment last March indicated that over 22 per cent. of wholly unemployed men in Cromer aged 60 to 64 were occupational pensioners. This is between two and three times the national average. Some of these people may regard themselves as semiretired and will not necessarily be seeking a full-time year-round job. This is a factor which makes the seaside areas different from other parts of the country. I will refer to training if I have time.
A substantial part of the coast of Great Britain has assisted area status. This is important to the efforts of these coastal towns, not only in attracting manufacturing industry, but in their efforts to attract the service industries. In the assisted areas, industrial development certificates are readily available, and there is a substantial package of inducements available to industry providing new jobs. Outside the assisted areas—I recognise that the area with which my hon. Friend is concerned is outside the assisted areas—applications for industrial development certificates have to be considered in the light of local conditions; but, in considering all applications for I.D.C.s for coastal towns, we take fully into account the employment position in the area. There have been no refusals under this Administration, as my hon. Friend generously recognised.
Many of the anxieties of seaside towns have their origins not in any fundamental decline but in the temporary problem of an economy not fully extended. The Government have taken unprecedented steps to stimulate the economy, and there are already signs that these measures are taking effect. The latest measure, announced only this week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, is to make


refunds of post-war credits, which will put considerable additional purchasing power—about £130 million—in consumers' pockets, starting next April, in time for the holiday season. The earlier measures will also have a direct benefit for seaside towns. As people have more to spend, holidays, particularly second holidays, are likely to rank high in their list of priorities.
As it is so relevant to the problem of seaside towns, I should like to say something about tourism, which is the responsibility of my Department. The promotion and development of tourism are the detailed responsibility of the tourist boards set up under the Development of Tourism Act, 1969. They are aware that we have taken a keen interest in the problems of the resorts.
Three aspects of the boards' promotional work are particularly relevant to the problems of the resort areas. First, there is a major drive to generate more business at Easter and Whitsun. This should help to improve profitability in the domestic market. The best prospects of immediate growth for the seaside towns are almost certainly in the second holiday market, which is a growing one. Second, there are the substantial improvement and extension of information for the general public on resorts' facilities and accommodation. Third there is the drive to help and encourage resorts to market themselves in new ways—for example, as coastal centres for mobile tourists.
One of the major problems facing the resorts in the vast was that they were unable to predict, and therefore unable to provide for, changes in the holiday market. The English Tourist Board has in hand a motivation study of attitudes towards holidays, with particular reference to English seaside resorts. Another problem is that few resorts have used modern techniques to assess their potential markets and to work out the most effective marketing strategies. In less pompous language, but means finding out exactly what the customer wants. The board, with its special expertise, is in a good position to help resorts in this respect.
The Government have made available £1 million annually to be spent on tourist projects in the development areas. This scheme of assistance is adminis-

tered by the tourist boards, which, when considering applications for assistance, take into account the likelihood of a project's increasing employment within the area. In the first instance this does not help directly my hon. Friend's area. Priority had to be given to the development areas.
In the past we have perhaps tended to concentrate on tourism's contribution as a foreign exchange earner. This is still important, but I believe that in future we shall have to look a lot harder at the domestic market. The tourist boards are now doing this, and their work is fully supported by the Government. We all want to see a healthy tourist industry. It is the Government's task to create a climate in which the industry can develop on its own. We believe that we are doing this and that there is every prospect of healthy growth and expansion. Certainly I would say from my experience over the last year that there is no lack of enthusiasm among those who are anxious to promote tourism throughout the country, be they at the centre or be they out in the various areas themselves.
I turn to the rather more specific problems raised by my hon. Friend. I regret to say that most of them are for Departments other than mine, but he may rest assured that, if my replies are inadequate, what he said will be carefully noted by those concerned. First, he referred to the road situation at Colchester and the improvements to the Colchester-Harwich Road. The Government are determined to provide fully adequate access to the major ports, of which Harwich is one, well before the early 1980s. Schemes are now under construction, programmed or in preparation to improve the whole of the route between Colchester, the A.12, and Park-stone Quay. The Government have very recently announced their intention of giving this road trunk road status.
Another matter raised by my hon. Friend concerning a Department other than mine is the adverse effects of cutting grant-aid to railways. I remind him of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October, 1970, when he said that a review would be undertaken of all grant-aided railway services. This review is still in hand. Grant-aided services in the


areas which my hon. Friend is particularly interested include those from Norwich to Sheringham, Yarmouth and Lowestoft, on which the grant falls due for review in January, 1973, and the services from Manningtree to Harwich and Colchester to Clacton and Walton. I am aware that my hon. Friend is in close touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on the grant assistance for these latter services, which falls due for review on 1st January, 1972.
My hon. Friend also asked questions about education. I cannot give him the figures for his constituency, but I understand that in North-East Essex four old substandard primary schools will be improved or replaced in the school building programmes for 1972–74. This, together with other school building programmes authorised for the area, should help to relieve unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has recently told local education authorities that she would like them to start up to half of their minor works allocation for 1973–74 in 1972–73 in order to make more rapid progress in meeting the needs of primary schools and to stimulate investment in areas of high unemployment. It is, of course, for the authorities themselves to decide how to apply their allocations.
More broadly, my hon. Friend referred to the possibility of setting up a special committee on unemployment among older workers in seaside towns. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in reply to a supplementary Question from my hon. Friend on 30th November, said:
I am prepared to ask my right hon. Friend to examine this special problem in seaside towns to see whether additional action can be taken there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 246.]
My hon. Friend may therefore rest assured that he has brought this matter clearly to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Government.
The last point I have to deal with is the question of coastal areas and their assistance for industrial development. Back in 1968 the Hunt Committee looked carefully at the problem of coastal resorts suffering from comparative isolation and declining holiday trade and their scope for industrial development. Its opinion was that these areas were in

many cases unsuitable for large-scale industrial development and were unlikely to solve their problems by attracting new industry alone. It took the view that their best prospects lay in some increase in office employment and the imaginative development of tourist and related activities. It commented that such an approach was likely to be more realistic and relevant to the needs of these resorts than the provision of financial incentives. Our own comprehensive review of seaside area coverage a year ago examined the problems of such towns outside the assisted areas and led us substantially to the same broad conclusions as to the strategy we should adopt.
Provided seaside resorts adapt themselves, as I know they increasingly tend to do, to the radically changed circumstances of tourist and holiday life, and if they seize the opportunities which will increasingly be before them, then the long-term future can be a prosperous and enormously exciting one.
Dealing with my hon. Friend's constituency, Harwich is not the same as towns which are purely seaside resorts. It is a modern continental port whose importance has grown in recent years with the introduction of nation-wide freightliner services and the growth of container transport. Harwich has good communications and its strong links on the continent hold out substantial prospects for expansion and growth in trade when Britain enters the E.E.C. The prospects for the seaside resorts and coastal areas in the long term are extremely good, particularly the area so ably represented by my hon. Friend.

MOTORWAYS, LONDON

6.22 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: The last time this question of motorways in London was raised was in a short debate when the House was mainly discussing transport in South-East London. My purpose is to raise one or two general questions about London's motorways and probe the mind of the Government about their general attitude to the development of the large-scale programme of motorways which has been announced and discussed. Recently a public inquiry was held and I suppose


it is reasonable for the Government to say that they are not able to say much until the inquiry reports.
I suggest to the Minister and his right hon. Friend that this question of motorways in London and the larger question of transport in London is not simply a matter of a decision to be taken in the light of this report. We have had similar reports for large-scale planning projects. I refer particularly to the Stansted affair and the inquiry which took place subsequently, the controversy over Cublington and finally the announcement of the decision to site London's third airport at Foulness. These latter decisions were not planning decisions but political decisions in that they were a response to local controversy, to strong feeling expressed in certain areas. Apart from planning considerations, political decisions were taken. No matter what the Government might have felt about the best site for the third London airport, the decision not to proceed with it was not a planning decision but a political decision.
On the inquiry about London motorways, one must bear in mind the very strong feeling in London generally but particularly in certain parts of it against the encroachment of motorways and, not only the destruction of hundreds of homes and the prospect of blight for thousands of homes, but the general destruction of amenity which has incensed local opinion in my part of London and in many other parts. When the report is published, we may well ask the Government, not to take a planning decision, but, in the light of social considerations, to take a political decision quite apart from the findings of the report.
I wish to raise the question of the Dover radial route. It has been felt by some people that the decision to finish that section of the Dover radial route inside what we might call the old L.C.C. area from Falconwood on through Eltham to St. Johns was taken irrespective of the big inquiry which took place. Some of us feel that permission will not be given for the completion of that section of the route until the big general plan has been approved. I ask the Minister a specific question on that to try to satisfy the misgivings of some people. There have been differences of view. I have been

under the impression for a long time that planning permission to go on with that route has been withheld pending the outcome of the larger inquiry.
I proceed to the more general question and ask, what will motorways do to London. In my part of south-east London there are to be four motorways within an area of half a square mile of motorway box, with Falconwood at the north-east corner, the Dover radial route as one part of the quadrilateral, Ringway 2 another, the M.20 another and then a road running from the Dutch House northwards to the Blackwall Tunnel. That is a concentration of motorways which cannot be found anywhere in the country. It will completely destroy the character of this part of London and will effectively isolate many thousands of people living inside that motorway box, virtually making them prisoners inside the four sides of the box. This is something which certainly the people of Eltham do not accept and will not accept. This is not true only of Eltham; it will happen in other parts of London as well.
If one looks at the motorway map for London one can see that this network will cause a tremendous change in the character of London. It will isolate thousands and thousands of homes. We shall be involved in the destruction of many houses, many of them modern houses, perfectly desirable houses, houses which, in a free market today, command prices of £10,000. £11,000, £12,000 and even more. There are in that part of my constituency to which I have referred, particularly on the Sidcup Road, houses which in a free market today would command £10,000 but which cannot be sold because of the threat and the fear of the coming of the motorway. This is a grave handicap to many of my constituents, and I know that a like handicap affects many other parts of London, too.
Last Autumn I travelled several thousand miles over the expressways in the United States. I drove a considerable distance around New York City and New York State and around Chicago. What I fear as a result of this programme of motorways in London is the same kind of horror descending on London as has descended on New York and Chicago. I think, for example, of the expressway


coming from Michigan, through Gary, and through south-east Chicago. In fact, the Chicago motorways start some 60 or 70 miles from the centre of Chicago. Chicago has a population smaller than that of Greater London.
This is the picture of the future, if we allow this programme of motorways which is promulgated, or conceived and projected, for the Greater London area. Over the next 30, 40 or 50 years, perhaps in less time, we shall be called upon to sustain not just the programme of motorways which we are talking about at the moment but even wider motorways, not just four-lane highways but six-lane highways and even 12-lane highways, and so on. This is the prospect—not just the creation of the motorways now projected but a multiplication of them, for there is no question, certainly on the American scene, but that the coming of the expressway has meant multiplication of expressways—and with no real diminution of traffic problems. Anyone who has travelled on the highways of the United States will know very well that traffic congestions there are not as great as they are in South-East England. So the prospects for South-East England are grim if we accept lightly what I would call the philosophy of the motorway.
I want now to refer to a recent book called "Outcast London" by Gareth Stedman Jones and reviewed in last Saturday's New Statesman. It talks about the effects of railway construction in London and the destruction of a great deal of London by the building of a network of railways. We remember "The Arches". We remember the engraving by Gustav Dora when he came to London. We remember Little Dorrit in "Dombey and Son", and other accounts of the life which many people lived under the railway arches.
Thousands of homes were destroyed by the building of that complex of railways, and the reviewer of the book draws a neat parallel—as does Gareth Stedman Jones himself—between what was done then and the effect of the building of a complex of motorways in London on the ultimate nature of London as we know it. It is not just the destruction of homes; it is the destruction of urban life as we know it, and the emergence of an urban life which is unreal, arti-

ficial and unacceptable to the people of London.
This is something which the planners do not always understand. After all, most of the people who talk and write about these plans do not themselves live in London. They do not live in the areas which will be so drastically affected. Those of us who live in London, who live with the ordinary people of London and who know where the shoe pinches do not accept that this kind of concept can lead to anything but the carving up of London once again and the emergence of a pattern of urban life which is uncivilised and dehumanised.
There is more to it than that. One of the results of the coming of the motorway in London is the tremendous increase in atmospheric pollution due to the concentration of motor vehicles, especially at certain times of the day. I wonder what tests have been made now of the pollution on parts of the M1, for instance, at certain times of the day.
The destruction of human life on the motorways at certain times is quite appalling—it is not just that people are misbehaving themselves—and, certainly, the loss of life on the scale we now have it on our roads and motorways would be entirely unacceptable on our railway system. Yet we lightly contemplate it and lightly accept it.
I was talking about pollution. We know from writers in America—I think particularly of an article in the Saturday Review which I read while I was in America last autumn—of the appalling effect on health of pollution caused by the concentration of motor vehicles, particularly heavy motor vehicles. One of the frightening features of the prospect before us in London is an even greater increase in heavy motor vehicle traffic on the roads than we have had, say, in the last 12 years. I think that the numbers of heavy motor vehicles have gone up by about five times in the last 12 years. In the next few years, we shall see not the 22-ton lorries to which we have become accustomed, but 40-ton and 50-ton lorries. The Government may say that they will be on motorways, but the juggernauts do not stay on motorways. A feature of this complex of motorways in London is that ultimately the vehicles on them will come off the motorways


on to the ordinary roads. The prospect of 40- and 50-ton lorries coming off the motorways and going through Plumstead. Charlton and Greenwich fills me with horror. These roads were not built for that sort of vehicle. Those who know the roads of South-East London know how often they subside, and one shudders to think what will happen if we have 40- and 50-ton lorries travelling on them.
The complex of motorways does not even meet the present concentration of traffic. I think of the Lower Road through Greenwich, Deptford and Rotherhithe. The motorways will not affect that concentration of traffic, because no motorway is planned to deal with the traffic along the south bank of the River Thames. I think of the Old Kent Road, which again will not be affected by this pattern of motorways. These two roads are already jammed at certain times of the day over long stretches. All the motorways will do is to make this traffic concentration worse as the vehicles ultimately disgorge from the motorways on to these roads.
It is ironic that these roads running parallel with the River Thames are chock-a-block, yet the river grows emptier and emptier week by week. Within 10 years the river from London Bridge down to Erith and beyond will be a dead river for traffic. The docks are closing, and within 10 years there will not be a dock upon the Thames until one gets as far down as Tilbury. Yet this enormous concentration of goods is being transported by road. I wish that A. P. Herbert was back in the House again to revive the idea of the use of the Thames as an alternative to the roads, not only for passengers but also for goods.
One thinks of the idiocies of the present system which will not be helped by the coming of the motorway complex. For example, the Inner Ring Road, which cuts through a street market, or The Cut, which is one of the main thoroughfares in South-East London, where there is a street market on most days and where every day there is double parking of lorries. When I came up to the House from Greenwich this morning I counted 50 lorries parked on yellow lines in a stretch of four or five miles, apart from motor cars, and that is only on one road. I wonder how many lorries

are parked at any given time in the inner parts of London on yellow lines? The whole system has completely broken down and the complex of motorways planned for London will not affect this traffic congestion to any extent. The roads in the inner part of London are now lorry parks and have been for a long time.
I hope the Minister will not run away with the idea that people like myself, who object so strongly to the motorways, are simply conducting an anti-motorway campaign. We are not. We are agitating for a rational system of transport in London and also for a comprehensive planning approach. I appreciate that this debate is confined to London, but this is something which could be enlarged to cover the whole country.
The building of motorways and roads is only part of the general transport picture. As an alternative, I envisage the creation of a much more rational and coherent system of public transport. I should like to see London Transport charging a fare of no more than 5p for a single journey. This would revolutionise the carrying of passengers in London. Furthermore, we need much stricter control of the loading and unloading of motor vehicles in London. This should be banned as it is in Paris throughout the daylight hours—in fact, lorries should be banned from the centre of London. We want to discourage people from using the roads.
We also want concessionary fares for the old and for young people. At present most old people are housebound. I know a village in Hertfordshire which has no bus service at all. The old-age pensioners who live there and who have no motor cars cannot travel to the market town. They are isolated—more isolated now than they were eighty years ago. This is what has happened with the closing down of public transport, particularly the railways.
I should like to see a real sense of urgency adopted in the creation of tubes. There is no tube in South-East London beyond New Cross. There is talk about the extension of the Fleet Line to Lewisham—forgetting that Lewisham is only part of the south-east and that, further east, there is the huge concentration of Thamesmead coming along with some 60,000 inhabitants. By what means of


travel are those people to get to work? Unless even more cars are to be unleashed on to the already congested roads, we shall need to have a transport plan for London. We do not have one at present.
We want to know what is the best way of doing things from a London point of view. I hope that when the report of the inquiry is published the Government will take a political decision—namely, not to proceed at all with this complex of motorways, but to look for a really rational and comprehensive transport plan for London.

6.50 a.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is to be congratulated for raising this important subject, even at this late hour. I sympathise with his views about the destruction of the amenity that is happening in various parts of London and at the way some parts are beginning to look like New York, Chicago or any other American city.
I often travel along Westway, which was opened last year, on my way to some parts of my constituency. With all those high rise flats and masses of concrete I cannot help feeling that we have become an American city rather than an English one. The hon. Member will agree that motor traffic of any kind must have roads to travel on. Modern society will not go backwards. There will be more traffic rather than less and there are only two ways of dealing with it. One way is to restrict it from entering city centres, which I do not favour. The other is to provide motorways which will not destroy the amenity.
Therefore, I want to recall a plan which was devised by Mr. A. E. Matthews, an architect and town planner and surveyor of London who put forward a paper at the meeting of the International Road Federation in London in 1966. The plan suggested tunnel motorways under city centres. Of course, he started with London. About four years ago I wrote to one of my hon. Friend's predecessors about this and asked for the views of the Ministry on the feasibility of building such motorways in London, particularly on economic grounds. The Ministry's answer was that the scheme was hopelessly uneconomic.
I have the impression that Mr. Matthews has now been in touch with the Ministry himself and has asked for a fresh examination. I hope the answer will be more favourable. Under the scheme as originally prepared, tunnels 60 feet in diameter would be constructed beneath London. Mr. Matthews now thinks the tunnels could be rectangular and about 80 feet under the city centre, below all obstructions and somewhere about the level of the tubes. Three parallel tunnels would run east to west and three north to south. They would have three fast lanes and a slow lane in each direction with traffic moving at normal motorway speeds. The advantage is that the amenity would be almost if not completely undamaged.
It would cost more to construct than a surface system. The estimate for the former L.C.C. area was about £7,000 million compared with about £1,700 million for roads on the surface. On the other hand the cost of the land would be minute by comparison because little would be needed. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether further consideration is being given to the plan and when he will be able to announce the outcome of his examination of it.
I know that it sounds somewhat ambitious. But if there is the will to overcome the engineering difficulties, is there any reason why the tunnel network should not be constructed? I know that there is the problem of ventilation, but I believe that there are ventilating engineers who could overcome the difficulty of extracting petrol fumes from tunnels even of the length and depth envisaged.
There is another point in the plan's favour. Not only would it take about 40 per cent. of London's through traffic right off the streets of the centre of London; it might also allow for car parks to be built underneath to provide about a quarter of a million additional car parking spaces spread over the whole area. That would remove all the car parking which now takes place in our streets, and that again would increase the amenity of our streets, in addition to avoiding the loss of amenity resulting from the building of motorways on the surface.
Before any further motorway plans for London are put forward, I think that this plan should be examined properly


and that some adequate reason should be given for not adopting it. I am sure that it is the answer, not only in London but in other cities as well, though on a different scale. It means no surface or overhead roads at all, no separation of one community from another, much less pollution on our streets—no doubt petrol fumes sucked out of tunnels could be released into the air at a higher level than they would be if they came from motor vehicles on the surface—no pollution from parked vehicles, probably fewer street signs of the kind needed to regulate traffic at present because the only traffic on the surface would be short-distance traffic, which it is calculated would be only about 60 per cent. of that which we have at present. And very much more room in which to move because there would be no parked vehicles.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to comment on this plan. I understand that the idea is being considered by his Department. I hope that it will not be turned down again, because I believe that it is the only way of solving London's appalling traffic problem.

6.58 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My desire to speak in this important debate, albeit briefly, is to some extent reduced and made more difficult by the fact that I have been called following two extremely thoughtful speeches. I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling).
I share some of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the future of what might be called the motorway syndrome in Greater London, and that is why I make this short intervention. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will not take offence if I say that he is well-known as a very able and gifted speaker in this House, but that he is the kind of hon. Member on the benches opposite who announces that he intends to speak for 10 minutes and sits down after 50. None the less, I welcome the content of his speech.
My comments may be thought to be a little unfair to those planners who, years ago, began to formulate their ideas about the future of the motorway network in

the Greater London area. However, there are evident manifestations of public anxiety in one part of London and another, and I do not mean only those which have been shown very amply in the context of the Greater London Development Plan inquiry, which is still proceeding and which, therefore, should not be prejudged. Anxieties have also been expressed outside the context of that inquiry, in view of the fact that two important social events of a kind have taken place in London. First, along with the projection of future motorway needs, requirements and extent, there has been public anxiety based on a continuing lack of knowledge about the real requirements for London's future roads. There is also the anxiety of a different generic type that arises from a growing feeling in the minds of many citizens in Greater London that these plans, after all, were formulated many years ago and are growing old fashioned in kind and, therefore, perhaps have conclusions which are also increasingly outdated.
I emphasise that I do not wish to prejudge the issue in final terms. That is why I, too, like the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South, will welcome very much what the Under-Secretary has to say on the matter. One does not want to anticipate the final conclusions of the current inquiries or anticipate too closely the Government's final conclusions vis-à-vis the Greater London Council's concluding formulations when the time comes in a year or so.
But, none the less, there is this increasing feeling that things may have already begun to change and may have changed quite substantially. The feeling that change has already taken place and that, perhaps, these now fairly old plans may not be suitable for the future of London for a whole nexus of environmental reasons may even go so far as to reach into the labyrinths of the G.L.C. This has been indicated not only in recent Press articles—there is the feeling here that one should not attach too much importance to speculative Press articles—but also in the misgivings that have been expressed by members of the G.L.C. I shall not mention names. It has also been indicated by what has been shown so far in the debate; that this matter cuts across


party lines completely and is in no way related to traditional party differences.
Increasing anxieties have been expressed within County Hall by some of the planners who originally were promoting the idea of the motorway box, which has now been re-Christened "Ringway 1" and "Ringway 2", and the whole network. There is increasing anxiety on the part of the public about the environmental repercussions. There is acute anxiety about estimates of cost, which are increasingly notional in conditions of inflation and the ever-growing mass of increases in constructional costs which has been experienced up and down the country but particularly in urban road construction enterprises.
Therefore, I should like to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about the Government's latest attitudes and the latest views of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in his Department, and their opinions in so far as he can give them. One understands his difficulty when the situation is fluid and subject to the inquiry and its conclusions. Has there been any modification of earlier expressed opinions? I do not wish to emphasise this too much. I accept that my hon. Friend can give only provisional answers. That is the nature of the answers which one expects from my hon. Friend this morning. Nonetheless, I should welcome some expression of the Government's attitude to this matter, which is vitally important for not only Greater London but the whole country, because London's motorways will have vitally important economic repercussions as well.
Because of what I believe have been the changing conditions, are not the Government and the G.L.C., and are not all of us here as parliamentarians, principally those who have constituencies in London, as I have—although I particularly welcome and am grateful for the fact that my constituency is not affected by these motorway proposals in any specific way—obliged to recognise public anxiety?
In addition to recognising the public anxiety that exists over these issues, we must accept that, despite the discussion that has gone on in the newspapers and elsewhere over the years, the public is ignorant about these complex issues. It must be part of the task of the G.L.C. in promoting these ideas—if the council

still believes in these ideas at the end of the inquiry—to see that the public is fully informed.
An interesting survey was recently done by the British Road Federation, which is, by definition, in favour of the Greater London development plan and new motorway proposals. Nevertheless, the survey revealed in a stark way the misgivings of residents in inner and outer London about the likely effects of these developments on London in environmental terms, and not only in the physical terms of houses being demolished and so on. People who felt that they might only just be affected by the route of a motorway expressed similar views, though many who would be affected were not aware of the fact because of the difficulty of understanding these complex matters.
It is clear, therefore, that the arguments are by no means concluded and that the inquiry proceeds. There may be strong and cogent arguments in favour of a new network of motorways in London, but its impact on the environment could be so drastic in qualitative and quantitative terms compared with its advantages that it would be unwise to proceed.
With the increasing development of urban roads, the volume of traffic is bound to increase. The old law of the French economists applies here; the bigger and more sophisticated the network of roads, the more traffic is diverted into the conurbations. And the more traffic there is, the wider the roads become, and so on. This is true of urban and rural motorways.
Many Londoners are now saying that a stop must be placed on what has always been considered to be the normal pattern of total freedom for motorists in the conurbations, and particularly in London. We must start to think really constructively about how to reduce this terrifying pressure of particularly private vehicles in our cities and towns, although, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West pointed out, heavy lorries are beginning to destroy parts of London.
Thought must be given to the need to resuscitate the public transportation system. Albeit the situation is desperate, for the environmental sake of Londoners that situation must be grappled now with urgency by any Administration, and I


hope the present Administration will do so. I know the Department is concerned about this matter. So my view is that no conclusions are possible until the public have had far more time to digest these immensely intricate and complicated future motorway proposals. I should like the Government to reiterate some of their opinions and views, and I should like the G.L.C. also to look at the problem again.
There is a change of heart in the citizenry of London and in those who are most knowledgeable and expert in traffic matters. There is this preliminary indication that people are fed up with the old patterns and the old rather automatic feeling and thought about future motorways. It may be that the network at the end of the 'eighties, when the construction begins, will be different in size, shape and character from the proposals in the plan. It may be that a more fundamental change of attitude against motorways in the inner London area—in the original box—will be manifested. Any of these permutations are possible, but I believe that the urgent need for reconsideration is established in both the public and the private mind.

7.12 a.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), but I do not share his misgivings about motorways in London. Nor do I share those of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), who used quite dramatic language in describing his opposition to the motorways. He spoke of horror descending, of communities being carved up and of the strong feeling in his constituency against motorways. I remind him that when the Blackwall Tunnel southern approach was opened to traffic by the Greater London Council about two years ago—and this area is either in or very close to his constituency —the people round about were so grateful to the engineer for his consideration in looking after their interests that they got together and presented him with a cheque.
The proposals for motorways are very much worse in prospect than in reality. Once the motorways are there I do not think that anyone would seriously argue that they should be removed. One can

say the same not only of the Blackwall Tunnel southern approach, which is part of the inner London ringway, but of the Cromwell Road extension in West London. There were no doubt howls and screams of rage from the anti-road lobby when the extension there was constructed in various stages after the war, but no one would seriously argue now that it should not have been put there; or that if it had not been constructed there would not now have been very severe traffic problems all around the western side of London, which would not only have made the area less efficient for those using it but would also have had adverse environmental effects.
We have in Greater London a network of radial roads in and out of the centre which is not too bad but which could certainly be improved. What is lacking is a system of orbital roads, so that people can get easily from one suburban area to another. The so-called South Circular Road is not a road at all but a higgledy-piggledy string of roads on which one takes over an hour to get from Woolwich to my constituency on the other side of London. It is time we stopped considering roads as creations for the pleasure of motorists and regarded them as essential industrial equipment which the community needs for the distribution of goods.
People often forget how big Greater London is—about 35 miles across. No one would seriously question that any pair of provincial cities 15, 20 or 25 miles apart—Manchester and Liverpool, Derby and Nottingham, Leeds and Bradford, Southampton and Portsmouth or Coventry and Birmingham—should be connected by a good road. Yet a pair of London boroughs each with between a quarter and half a million population, equivalent in size to some of the cities I mentioned, such as Woolwich and Richmond or Harrow and Croydon do not, so it is said, need a good road. But it is just as necessary to have easy transport of goods between parts of London for industrial and commercial purposes. Loss of time and efficiency, with lorries held up in traffic jams, has done much over the past generation to raise the cost of living in the area more than would otherwise have been the case.
Turning to the environmental side, it is essential, if the London suburbs are to remain reasonably pleasant places in


which to live, that we do all we can to remove heavy transport, particularly long distance transport, from our residential areas to the motorways. When those motorways are completed, about 50 per cent. of all vehicle miles travelled in the Greater London area will be on them.
I regard the motorways not as a policy in themselves but as part of a policy for controlling traffic in the Greater London area, to be taken in conjunction with a rigid parking policy in Central London to reduce the quantity of commuting into Central London and to force those going there to work on to public transport; and taken also in conjunction with an extension of traffic management schemes such as one-way streets, clearways and no right turns, all of which help the traffic to flow smoothly and easily and stop it clogging up in the town centres around Greater London.
I strongly support the motorway proposals and I hope that neither the Government nor the G.L.C. will lose heart because of what I regard as ill-informed opposition.

7.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): This debate is massive in its implications and the subject that it covers. It is one of the frustrations which the House will understand that, being a Minister in the Department ultimately responsible for the inquiry now proceeding. I am precluded from entering into this fascinating and challenging debate. I hope that I can be excused from following all the arguments of detail, however diverting, because for me to express a view one way or the other—both views have been expressed clearly this morning—would be to prejudice the position of total impartiality which I must preserve in this matter. I could deal specifically with a number of points without crossing that narrow threshold.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made an eloquent plea for a rational system of transport and planning in London. We have a G.L.D.P. Inquiry sitting to consider the proposals for such a system and a balancing of all the competing factors involved. It has very much in mind the final, last look, comprehensive survey behind the hon. Gentleman's request.
It is a similar approach to that which led in 1969 to the creation of the single transport planning authority within the powers of the G.L.C. It was with these arguments in mind that those steps were taken. The G.L.C. is now the single transport planning authority for the whole of London. From a legal framework point of view, we have already moved along the road down which the hon. Gentleman requested us to go. In consequence, we have this massive inquiry to reach the conclusions and recommendations which have been mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) asked whether I could give an interim report on any change of approach by the Government. I cannot give an interim report, because that would be a pre-judgment of the issues involved in this massive exercise. I listened carefully to what he said, but I cannot comply with his request.
There are a number of individual road schemes which the Government feel merit proceeding with because they are held not to prejudice the G.L.D.P. inquiry. However, it is impossible to decide in advance which schemes these will be. We hold ourselves free to make a decision where we believe that an individual road scheme put to us by the Highways Authority can be seen to be free-standing on its merits.
This leads to the specific question put to me by the hon. Member for Woolwich. West about the Dover radial route. I cannot give him the assurance for which he asked. We must be free to judge any case put to us on its merits. That is not to say that we are on the verge of making a particular decision in this case one way or the other. I must answer the question in general terms. Every case must come within the blanket of freedom to make a decision on the merits of the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) raised an interesting alternative which would provide for a series of tunnels beneath London. He will appreciate that this is an alternative to the schemes being considered by the G.L.D.P., so for me to express a view on tunnels as an alternative would again be to prejudice the position in which I find myself.

Sir R. Russell: Is that scheme being considered?

Mr. Heseltine: Any scheme is free for consideration or advocation by objectors to the G.L.D.P. It is up to individuals to say whether the proposals put forward by the G.L.D.P. are wrong and that an alternative could be found for dealing with the matter. There is no power which we either have or would require to preclude the panel which will report to us from mentioning anything. Whatever I say about alternatives is bound in some way to prejudice the position in which the Secretary of State finds himself.

Mr. Hamling: Do I take it that the same consideration applies to the possibility of public transport being deliberately run very cheaply to keep traffic off the roads? Is there an open mind on that matter as well?

Mr. Heseltine: There is obviously an on-going management responsibility for public transport within the G.L.C. Decisions are being made whilst the inquiry proceeds. If it were to be considered as a strategic objective, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind, it is the kind of alternative which could be produced and would have to be considered at the time. I do not sit on the panel of inquiry, so I cannot involve myself in what it may want to suggest or the package it may want to advocate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) put an opposite view to that of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West. Whilst it was interesting to listen to as a contrast in debate, there is nothing further I can add.
A number of other inquiries associated with the whole problem of the urban environment, which is ever-pressing, are proceeding. The Urban Motorway Committee is examining the impact of urban motorways and what can be done to make them easier to live with as well as what changes should be made in the procedures. The comprehensive review of compensation is well under way to see what can be done to produce a better deal for property owners affected by the changes in the structures of cities and for those who are not owners but who are injuriously affected. Everyone looks forward to the two reports, which are now not all that far off, and the decisions the Government then feel able to take.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West —I am sure not intentionally—did not give quite enough credit to the Government for many of the things they have done in the past year or so in the fields about which he was talking. Everyone is concerned with noise pollution and so on. These matters have a relevance to the motorway situation in London, but they also have an immense national significance. We have introduced regulations dealing with noise, and anti-pollutive devices and a Bill dealing with the weight of foreign vehicles coming to this country, and we took a negative decision not to increase the size of lorries. There has been a range of safety regulations, all relating to the quality of life on the roads. The Government have done a great deal in an on-going attempt to improve the environmental factors involved along the lines the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I do not feel that it will help if I outline the statutory position or give the list of roads involved under the G.L.C.'s or the Government's ownership. The House is interested in the massive questions that will arise from the Greater London Development Plan, but I cannot comment on them.
I thank the hon. Member for Woolwich, West for a most interesting debate on a subject of great interest to all of us who live in the capital city.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (SOUTH SHIELDS)

7.23 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: That I am intervening in the debate at this hour is an indication of the deep concern I have about the critical unemployment situation which has developed in my constituency and its effects.
I have been raising this general issue and making certain suggestions about it over a period of years. I am not arguing that the whole problem is the present Administration's responsibility; I have been critical of past Administrations, too. But I think that when the Minister hears the figures in my constituency he will understand the depths of our anxiety.
We now have about 7,000 people out of work in my constituency and the area immediately around it, in the area that


will become, under the Local Government Bill, the new South Shields metropolitan district. The total of 7,000 people out of work is 260 more than a month ago and over 2,000 more than a year ago. Of the total, 5,400 are men—320 more than a month ago and about 1,500 more than a year ago. These are the crude and simple facts. On Tyneside as a whole, we have over 9 per cent. of all the men out of work and in my constituency, South Shields itself, over 15 per cent. of the men are unemployed. This is not a small area but a big, heavily populated area.
The figures have been growing steadily over the last two years and were insufferable even two or three years ago. They are much more insufferable today. The prospect is grim. More and more redundancies are being declared and we have great anxieties. Even as a Minister was opening a new project on the Tyne linked with one of our big shipyards, huge new redundancies were being declared at that shipyard itself—a shipyard on which we rely for a very large part of the employment in the area.
The effect upon young people is particularly tragic. Not only is this, naturally enough, increasing migration of some of the livelier and more vigorous people we shall need if the area is to redevelop, but there have been increasing and worrying signs of the growth of violence and certainly of a very rapid growth of drug abuse as well. These cannot be isolated from the atmosphere of depression and frustration among young people in the North-East, particularly in my area.
A letter from a constituent today argued this case. Although himself in middle years, he expressed his deep anxiety whether the peaceful society to which we are used is on the point of breaking because of the pressures being applied. One issue in particular that he raised was his anxiety about the inadequacy, as he felt it, of the training facilities available for young people in particular but also for older people. He made the point, which I have checked and found accurate, that many seeking adult training facilities are having to wait nine or even 12 months before they can get the opportunity to train, particularly in some of the engineering trades. It seems wrong that those who are eager to have

the opportunity of training should be denied it for such long periods.
I am aware that there are hopes of improving the position. Premises in a nearby trading estate recently vacated by British Oxygen, which closed its premises there, are to be developed as a new addition to our training facilities. We welcome that very much and I hope that it can be brought into full operation quickly so that some of those who are pressing for opportunities for training will get them. I hope that some of the younger people who are seeking training facilities even of the most general kind will not face the troubles they have faced recently in being denied unemployment benefit because they are taking some temporary course of training.
It is action we want and it is to this need that I turn. Local government is feeling a great deal of frustration because while at one moment the Government are urging those in local government forward to undertake emergency schemes within a fairly limited timescale, they have been forced, because of financial difficulties and other pressures, either to cancel or to postpone some of the bigger, permanent schemes which formed part of their broad planning and development on which they rely.
My own authority points out that it has not been able to make full use of some of the emergency schemes offered. It is a question of fitting them into the long-term plans. On the other hand, there are a number of major road and other schemes which are of consequence to the area and which it feels obliged to postpone in view of the charge that would be imposed upon it. We are losing the benefit of those. I ask for a re-examination of these schemes. For example, the completion of the dual carriageway into the town of South Shields, which had been approved when there was a Labour authority, was postponed when the political colour of the authority changed. We are still waiting for that scheme to be carried out. It is a big one costing £1 million to which the local authority would have been expected to contribute £25,000. In addition to the dual carriageway it would have involved the clearance of some old archways which were linked with some of the coal staithes in the area. One of the advantages of getting ahead with the project would be


that we could have used a lot of the material made available for tipping directly into the development of the nearby dock area and the Jarrow Slake area, which is due for reclamation in any case as an industrial site.
These are areas which will prove of enormous value if we can get them prepared quickly enough to take large-scale industry. We have a large number of smaller sites but for the kind of industry we need to employ the large number of men out of work we need larger sites in the continuing hope that it will be possible to establish chemical and other industries.
As things are going, although general planning approval has been given for this very big reclamation scheme from the Tyne and the Jarrow Slake—an historic area near to the Church of the Venerable Bede—if it goes forward at its present speed it may take years to complete. It is of the greatest importance that the Ministry should indicate its willingness to examine the possibility of offering financial support for a project of this kind. The difficulty is that it is a project being carried out by the Tyne Port Authority. If it had been carried out by a local authority, I think it would have attracted a considerable grant. The fact that it is being carried out by the Tyne Port Authority denies the opportunity of a grant being made available. If that is not so. I should be glad to hear it. It is very important to all of us in this area that that project should go ahead without further delay.
This is part of the development affecting the River Tyne. The Tyne provides the safest harbour on the North-East Coast, and it a tragedy that there has been a steady diminution of traffic on the Tyne for some time due to the steady run-down of the traditional coal trade. We need new traffic to take the place of the coal trade. We hoped that that opportunity for new traffic would arise from the iron ore trade which we secured for the Tyne and the very modern apparatus we installed there, but unhappily for us that is to be moved down to the Tees before long and further redundancies are likely to occur unless new trade can be attracted. There is need to go ahead as rapidly as possible with the recon-

struction and redevelopment of one of the quays which needs strengthening, the Sutherland Quay, in order that new traffic can come in, and possibly a further increase in the timber trade which is using that dock.
We need to go ahead with the provision of the larger industrial sites if we are to provide the opportunity for work which the area badly needs. One encouraging feature of the series of protests we have been receiving from men working in the area and unemployed people is the effort being made to draw up practical lists of projects which they believe could be undertaken in the area. I welcome this. I had in my area such practical lists from shop stewards at Reyrolles, one of our big engineering complexes, and there was a comparable examination of the problem by the South Shields Trades Union Council. They list projects for local authority and industrial development which are worthy of careful study.
We need to call what I would regard as sub-regional conferences comprising representatives of the Ministries, local authorities, main statutory bodies in the area and the trade unions to discuss coherent programmes for action in addition to the normal work that the local authorities and other bodies are doing. I want to draw in some of the people on the shop floor who have been showing their willingness and eagerness to contribute practical proposals towards helping to overcome the problems.
We need additional local authority projects in housing, education and health. We need statutory bodies such as the regional hospital boards to put in their proposals for what needs to be done—the replacement of hospital buildings, and so on. These are the kinds of scheme we need. It would be for a body like the North-East Development Council or the Regional Economic Advisory Council to relate these practical proposals to the unused labour resources available. This is the kind of project which I want to see moving, in order to give some hope and some sense of action to those in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies who are particularly disturbed about the situation at the present time.
The North-East Development Council itself saw the Prime Minister not very long ago and presented to him a list of


practical proposals for action dealing widely with the needs of the whole area of the North-East of which my own constituency is only one part. In its interesting recommendations to the Prime Minister the council made one very interesting and important declaration. It said that, after all, the main problem, in the council's view, was the failure to raise incomes adequately in order to generate the demand which is needed in the area. This is a point which might be thought of more carefully. After all, this is an independent body; it is not a partisan body but an independent body making its judgment after very careful, independent investigation, and its comment is rather interesting in view of the criticisms we have had of the actions of trade unions and others at this time.
I am initiating this brief debate in order to get an immediate reply from the Minister and to urge upon the Government the great sense of urgency which we in the area feel, and our deep anxiety lest the whole framework of our social conditions should be destroyed.

7.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) started with a broad picture, which he painted in language which was extremely fair and which reflected the great sense of anxiety which both the present Government and his own Government have and had about the situation which he went on to describe. When he mentions a figure of 7,000 people out of work one can have nothing but a sense of tragedy because of what that unemployment means in human terms.
Of course, it has been a major source of preoccupation for both his own Government and for mine. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman stressed the length of the period during which the problem has been growing. The problem of declining regions is one with which Governments of both parties have been increasingly preoccupied. I noticed the hon. Gentleman's words with which he described the situation, saying that the situation was already insufferable years ago, and that it has deteriorated since. The range of reasons has been well rehearsed. So I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the balanced way in which he introduced the subject, and I congratulate him upon

having the persistence in staying to raise at this early time of the morning a matter of such importance to his own constituents and to all those who live in the region.
I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have recognised in a variety of ways the very special problems of the South Shields area, which, of course, led in February to the declaration of the area as a special development area, which, in itself, attracts a considerable number of special advantages to those people who want to move their industrial activities there. They are operational grants and rent-free periods, and they are added to the grants already available in the development areas, building grant, additional loans, removal grant, grant of one sort and another, which basic services attract, free depreciation, and the initial building allowance, of all of which the hon. Gentleman is fully aware.
The hon. Gentleman stressed the need for improvement in training facilities. Here also, the Government support his view. The Department of Employment area office covers training for about 40 trades in the area, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a long list of people now applying for some of the training courses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is, therefore, taking active measures to expand the capacity of Government training centres in an effort to reduce the waiting lists. I thank the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the extra capacity which has recently been announced in order to bring forward this much needed facility.
Next, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of Tyne reclamation. This is a matter in which my Department has been involved. The scheme by South Shields County Borough Council for the reclamation of about 40 acres of derelict land at Middlefields has been approved for grant at the rate of 85 per cent. Undoubtedly, there has been a certain amount of anxiety about this scheme because, unfortunately, the reclamation of 23 acres at Middlefields has been held up because of the refusal by British Rail to accept the district valuer's valuation for the purchase of the land by the council. However, further discussions last month between the council, British Rail and the


district valuer give reason to hope that there could shortly be agreement on this dispute. I know that the hon. Member will be pleased to hear that.
I come to the question of Jarrow Slake. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the Port of Tyne Authority has plans for filling in the area known as the Jarrow Slake to produce some 92 acres of land for new industrial development on Tyneside.
It proposes to start work soon on building a bund, using stone from Usworth colliery. The hon. Gentleman asked about availability of grant. Grant is not available for this project for two reasons. As we have already pointed out —and as his own Government pointed out to him when they were responsible for these decisions—it is not available, first, because the land is not owned by the local authority, and this particular scheme is worked only through local authorities. Second, and perhaps more significant in this case, the land is not derelict land, and the scheme with which we are concerned here is for the reclamation of derelict land. It does not, therefore, come within the category which attracts grant.

Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. Gentleman came up and saw it, he would, I am sure, regard it as desolate, if not derelict. The Slake area is a waste area which one would expect to come within this category. Could not the Department reconsider the question of its exclusion on the ground that it is not owned by the local authority? It is, after all, a joint statutory body.

Mr. Heseltine: This question has been looked at by the hon. Gentleman's own Government and by the present Government. The clear advice which I am given is that it is not land which has been made derelict by industrial or other development, and it is not, therefore, within the ambit of the Industrial Development Act, 1966. Obviously, one is always tempted to say that one will look at such a question again because one wishes to be as helpful as possible; but this is a matter which has been looked at carefully on several occasions, and it would, I think, be irresponsible of me to hold out grounds for optimism in this situation.
Now, a word about some of the infrastructure works which are proceeding in the area associated with the hon. Gentleman and his constituency. I mention these matters in the context of the programme of £162 million which has been announced. This represents additional public expenditure which the Government have authorised, and about £27 million to date has been allocated within the Northern region. There is still scope for additional schemes to be added to those already announced.
South Shields so far has asked for only one road scheme to be included, and that is the widening and reconstruction of the A.1300, Prince Edward Road, at the cost of £36,000. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that if further schemes satisfying the conditions of the, programme are proposed by local authorities in the Northern Region we should be delighted to consider them. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Shields will take that as an earnest of our good endeavours and see whether we can do anything to stimulate the production of such schemes.
South Shields has received an extra allocation of £124,000 for locally determined expediture for this financial year, and this enables the local authority to go forward with a large number of small schemes covering many aspects of local authority spending—parks, highway improvements, street lighting, etc. The total includes £10,000 for each of two industrial sites. These are Victoria Road site, which was purchased from the Church Commissioners, and the St. Hilda Street site. The money is to be used for the demolition of existing buildings, new roads, sewers, car parking and street lighting.
In addition, the Northern Development area will receive considerable benefit from the Government's decision to bring forward expenditure by the nationalised industries. Two Type 42 destroyers and two Fleet tankers are to be built by Swan Hunter on Tyneside. This should provide additional employment for about 1,400 men as well as creating indirect employment elsewhere in the region. Also, a considerable part of the engineering work for the new power station at Ince will be done in the region.
I will say a word or two about the road schemes in the area in addition to those I have already mentioned. The two principal road schemes—stage 1 Western Approach, which is the extension of dual-ling to the Jarrow Road, and stage 2, Western Approach, Jarrow Road junction and arches—were originally programmed for 1968–69 and 1969–70 respectively. Unfortunately, they had to be deferred because of the council's inability to find the 25 per cent. contribution which is expected from local authorities for the improvement of principal roads in their areas.
These roads form the main feeder route to South Shields, and will serve the immediate industrial and commercial areas involved. They will also provide a link with the Tyne Tunnel approach road. The latest information I have of a provisional date for the start of this work is that the schemes are now likely to begin, for stage 1 in July, 1973, and for stage 2 in July, 1975.
Another scheme was announced in the Department's preparation list of September, 1969, and that was also held up because of the council's lack of funds. That is stage 3 of the A19 Central Area Through Road, stage 2 of which is now nearing completion. The through road will relieve the shopping centres in King Street and the market place. The provisional start for work on stage 3 is August, 1974. I hope these starting dates will materialise and indicate the pattern of road building beginning next year, which will then provide this construction work.
On the Northern Region as a whole, about £6 million is likely to be spent on improving the standard of road maintenance over the next three years. This was an additional scheme brought forward by the Government amounting to over £40 million to raise the standard of road maintenance throughout the country.
One of the better measures introduced by the Labour Administration was the Housing Act, 1969, which substantially increased grants for improving our older houses and provided a comprehensive code for the improvement of whole areas of housing by giving local authorities powers to declare general improvement areas. This has led to an acceleration of this work throughout the country, and

the Northern Region is no exception. I am glad to say that a special house improvement month is to be the centre of a campaign in South Shields beginning on 28th February next year. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will feel that, as it is in his constituency, he might wish to be associated with it. The amount of benefit that can flow to property owners who come forward and take up improvement grants is considerable. They are extremely generous and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will wish to associate his name with the publicity efforts that will be made early in the following year.
In addition to the Housing Act, 1969, the Housing Act, 1971 gave additional financial assistance for a limited period of two years to housing and area improvement in the development and intermediate areas. This has given a sharp boost in addition to the activity in the region, which includes areas such as South Shields. It is the council's intention to take advantage of these higher grants for improving 300 to 400 of their 4,000 prewar housing stock by June, 1973. Furthermore, the North-East Housing Association intends to improve 500 of its dwellings, and the National Coal Board 100 of its dwellings, by the 1973 deadline. This is an area of stimulated activity which will be helpful to the employment situation.
I come to the matter of the sub-regional conference. I know that the hon. Gentleman has put forward this suggestion on an earlier occasion. My right hon. Friend has sympathy with the approach indicated in this suggestion, and indeed anticipated it in announcing on 7th December that he was to receive a deputation of civic heads of North-East local authorities. Since then the Mayor of Sunderland has written suggesting that the meeting should be held at the new Civic Centre early next year and this invitation is now being considered by my right hon. Friend. Wherever the meeting is held, I assure the hon. Member that the major local authorities in the North East will be more than welcome to send their representatives to put forward their views to my right hon. Friend. We have a real wish to listen to suggestions. We are considering suggestions by the N.E.D.C. which have not already been implemented, and we very


much welcome any other ideas put forward within the framework of existing Government policies.
The overall conclusion is that the main need now is for industry on a national scale to respond to the massive additional public expenditure that has been deployed by the Government to deal with the problem of unemployment in various parts of the country, and to respond also to the new sense of confidence that is beginning to be felt, not only associated with the additional expenditure, hut with the coming of the Common Market proposals. There will be no difficulty whatever in obtaining industrial development certificates anywhere within the Northern development area. Given such new development, we look forward to a period when the difficulties which have been experienced under both Labour and Conservative Governments will soon be mitigated.

PRISON REPORT

8.33 a.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: Since the Home Office report on prisons together with the statistical tables is now available, I thought this might be a convenient moment at which to debate it. In a longer debate one would wish to mention many more aspects of the report than I propose to mention this morning. For example, one might discuss the current employment situation, which is set out in chapter VI of the report and which gives an inescapable impression that too little is being done. If a similar priority had been given in this area of the prison service as was given following the Mountbatten Report on matters of security, a great deal more might have been done.
Chapter VIII of the report deals with rehabilitation. This is set out in a separate chapter for the first time, and this perhaps symbolises the importance of what is a vital and productive element in prison work. I note the increase in the number of educational officers mentioned in paragraph 40, namely from 118 in 1967 to 149 in 1970. That is welcome in so far as it goes.
But the reason I raise this matter this morning is the critical situation in our

penal system which is revealed, not for the first time, in this prison report.
There is gross overcrowding in our prisons, particularly the local prisons for men and this has become far worse in 1970 compared with 1969. Paragraph 3 shows that in 1969 the highest number sleeping two or three in a cell was 10,539. But by 1970 this had risen to 14,174, a very large increase. The figures for the numbers sleeping two to three in a cell at the end of the year for 1969 was 10,241 while in 1970 it was 13,548.
This is no new development. It has been getting worse for years yet we do not seem to have noticed that by any human standards the position has become intolerable and we therefore continue to tolerate it. We try to mitigate it a little but without any fundamental rethinking of the whole question of when prison is appropriate and when it is not. To be fair some people are thinking but there is far too little action.
Overcrowding is defeating one supposed main object of imprisonment which is the reformation of the offender. Paragraph 31 of the report says that overcrowding:
… made it difficult to sustain the advances of recent years in the treatment and training of inmates.
It goes on:
It threatened to reduce the opportunities for those informal contacts between the staff and inmates which do so much to improve the response and outlook of people in custody.
Physical and material problems are referred to in the same paragraph. One governor of a local prison is quoted as speaking of the:
… nagging uncertainty—whether the sewers will cope, can the boilers maintain the steam pressure, will there be enough work and if so where do we put them to do their daily task?
There is little prospect of relief or change. There are three apparently more positive factors which one needs to take account of. First is the prison building programme left by the previous Government. The public expenditure White Paper says that in spite of this programme, the greatest since Victoria, on present trends overcrowding would become slightly worse, even though 10,600 additional places will be provided.
Then there is the question whether all this vast expenditure is worth-while. Is


it cost effective? Would it not be better to make a greater effort at the other end of the problem with sentencing policy rather than attempting to cope with the consequences of that policy? I understand that in California counties are currently being subsidised to keep people out of state prisons.
This is not just a question of building prisons. What about the problem of staffing them? In paragraph 52 there is a reference to an increase in 1970 in what is described as an already unduly high level of overtime. Where will the staff come from to man these additional prisons?
The principal overcrowding is in the local prisons for men. According to appendix 3 of the prison report their average capacity is 10,092. The average number of inmates is given as 16,433. The greatest number of inmates at any one time in any one prison is, of course, very much higher. Where will these 10,600 additional places be provided and how far will they help these local prisons for men?
There is a second positive factor referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill the other day, that the prison population has been stabilised over the past year and one asks hopefully whether this is a permanent change of trend. The prison population does not always follow the same trend. If one examines the position over the last hundred years, one finds that the proportion of the population in prison fell in the last 30 years of Queen Victoria, rose under Edward VII, fell under George V, and has been rising under George VI and Elizabeth. I hesitate to say whether there is any connection between the name of the Monarch and the trend, but it has both fallen and risen at various times, and it is still not as large now per head of the population as it was in 1871, It would be a happy state of affairs if one could believe that the trend had changed, but, clearly, we cannot base our plans on such a change, and we must be sceptical about whether a change in the trend has taken place.
The third positive factor is the Criminal Justice Bill. I say little about it, because we are at the moment considering it in Committee. But it has positive elements. It will result in more people being dealt

with in the community. The effect, at best, is likely to be marginal, and the provisions regarding suspended sentences may tend to increase the prison population.
We must not place too much hope on these apparently more positive factors. In those circumstances, the Government must consider whether far more radical steps are not required to end the inhumanity of our present prison overcrowding. I believe that such steps could be taken without a significant increase in the risk to the population at large.
I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will clarify certain figures. According to paragraph 3 of the Prison Report, the average population of our prisons in 1970 was 39,028 and the highest was 40,321. The highest number of people sleeping two or three to a cell was 14,174. The end year figure was 13,548. In paragraph 3 of the Public Expenditure White Paper, the prison population is said to have increased from 47,850 to 59,350. How does the figure of 47,850 compare with the average figure in 1970 of 39,028? Again, the figure given of people sleeping two or three to a cell—the figure about which the word "now" is used—is 16,000. That has to be compared with the highest figure in the Prison Report for 1970 of 14,174. What is the reconciliation between those apparently different sets of figures?
If the figures in the White Paper are to be believed, the situation is vastly more serious at the moment than even the Prison Report itself suggests.
Implicitly, present policy is based on the principle that prison accommodation in local prisons for men is indefinitely extensible. If one crates animals and sends them anywhere by air, there are standards of accommodation. There are none in local prisons for men. In some parts of the penal system, there are standards. If there is no room in a Borstal, an offender waits in a local prison which is already overcrowded. One cannot send an offender to a mental hospital unless the hospital agrees. A court cannot send anyone to a remand home unless there is room. The pamphlet issued by the Home Office and entitled "Sentence of the Court" says in paragraph 96:
The régime of a detention centre cannot be maintained if the centre is overcrowded, and it is therefore necessary to request courts


to ascertain from the warden in each case whether there is a vacancy in the centre before passing a sentence of detention.
But local prisons have to cape, whatever the consequences of the sentencing policy.
In West Rhine Westphalia, a judicial decision has declared that it is illegal to place prisoners more than one to a cell. That cannot be done in this country because of Parliament's reluctance, advised by lawyers, to impinge on the freedom of sentencing. We must allow sentencers flexibility, even if the separate decisions of sentencers create an intolerable situation in total. We have here what I may call Maudling's Dilemma—perhaps it is Carlisle's Dilemma—the dilemma that leads the Home Secretary, in the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, to state in one column of HANSARD the two entirely contradictory principles on which he is acting, or on which he thinks he is acting. The right hon. Gentleman is reported as saying:
My first principle, therefore, is that the courts must decide what to do with any person who is found gully of any offence.
That is the flexibility principle. The right hon. Gentleman then continued:
I would like to see tougher sentences passed on violent criminals. I should like to see other criminals dealt with in ways other than imprisonment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 967.]
That statement is quite inconsistent with the flexibility principle, which sends to prison large numbers of people who are not violent criminals.
My principle would be that I would wish to confine imprisonment to offenders whose freedom is a danger to the public, and that other criminals should be dealt with in other ways. That statement, too, is inconsistent with the flexibility principle. But it is not just a matter that if Parliament wants to establish a certain sentencing policy, there would have to be a limit on the freedom of sentencers. Even if each individual sentence was defensible on some ground, of deterrence or suitability to the individual case—and I can think of some decisions which I cannot believe are defensible—what Government and Parliament have to decide is whether they can cope with the total result of a large number of separate decisions.
If Government and Parliament cannot cope, and an intolerable situation is

created in our prisons, something drastic must be done about it. Surely there is some limit to the capacity of our prisons which we cannot allow to be exceeded at whatever sacrifice to the flexibility principle. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can tell us about the results of the study taking place about the maximum capacity of our prisons. One would like to think that there was some maximum capacity which could not be exceeded, even under current policies.
The Home Secretary is fortunate, at any rate to this extent. The problem is made much easier for him by the fact that he knows that under current sentencing policies many people are in prison whom he believes should not be in prison. So if he wishes to take action which relieves prison overcrowding, that action can be entirely consistent with his views on sentencing policy.
One thing he can do is to make sure the courts have the necessary information before sentencing. From answers to certain Parliamentary Questions which I put down and which the hon. and learned Gentleman answered, it is quite clear that the Home Office does not really know what influence Circulars 188 and 189 of 1968 have had in ensuring that social inquiries are made before custodial sentences are imposed. In one of these Answers the hon. and learned Gentleman said that
…the arrangements …appear to be working satisfactorily. I am considering how a fuller assessment might be made of their operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1971; Vol 827, c. 320.]
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman considers that point and that he finds some way of making a fuller assessment of their operation. One thing he will clearly have to do is to get more information about the situation than he currently has.
The first area in which action is required is the deterrent sentence, that is, the sentence not fitted to the individual case. In the last Session of Parliament, in the other place, where they debate these matters more frequently, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, spoke on this subject and he made three points against deterrent sentences which seem to me sound and to which I will refer, with some comment. The first was that manifestly, and by definition, these are unfair to


the individual. His second point was that they involve necessarily a longer sentence than the individual would otherwise receive.
According to the 1970 Prison Report, the average length of sentence is increasing, and this would be true, according to the Report, even when the effect of suspended sentences is allowed for. The table on page 4 shows that the index of average length of sentence has increased from 83·6 in 1965 to 129 in 1970 —an increase of 50 per cent. No doubt this is partly the effect of suspended sentences and partly the effect of the smaller number of short-term fine defaulters. However, this is a trend which is significantly increasing the prison population.
The third point made by Lord Foot was that injustice to the individual made the work of the prison department more difficult. In fact, there is no evidence to show that a so-called deterrent sentence is more deterrent than one suitable to the individual. "People in Prison" states on page 53:
Slightly more than half the men who have served sentences of more than 18 months for an indictable offence are reconvicted within two years of release from prison.
And "Sentences of the Court" shows on page 72, in table 5, the high reconviction rate of people sentenced to imprisonment. One is bound to ask "For what good?" —and one gets the answer on page 39, in paragraph 142, of "Sentence of the Court," where one reads:
The reformative value of imprisonment is limited, and imprisonment often adds to an offender's problems of rehabilitation, rather than reduces them. Although there are cases where imprisonment is unavoidable, it is increasingly coming to be regarded as the sentence to be imposed only where other methods of treatment have failed or are considered inappropriate.
In other words, wherever possible—and this is consistent with what the Home Secretary has said and what I think he is trying to do—people should be dealt with in the community. In fact, however, the position is very different. The numbers sentenced to imprisonment in 1970 compared with 1969 were up—men by 13 per cent. and women by 17 per cent.
Consider, next, remands in custody, many of which are unnecessary. The remands take place to local prisons, which are already overcrowded. More-

over, they make quite disproportionate demands on staff time in local prisons because of the receptions, discharges and the various processes that are involved, including visits of solicitors and so on. Above all, the business of staff having to escort prisoners on remand to and from court is extremely time consuming. We read on page 67, paragraph 163, of "People in Prison":
Workshops in many local prisons sometimes have to close for lack of staff on days on which the demands of court work are high.
Yet the number of untried remands showed an increase in 1970 over 1969—men up by 6 per cent. and women up by 22 per cent. All convicted remands, including Section 26, were up in 1970 compared with 1969 by 7 per cent. for men and 7 per cent. for women. The numbers given in the statistical tables show untried prisoners at 19,429 and convicted prisoners at 9,607, which is only a slight improvement.
It is worth noting specifically the medical remands. These figures appear on page 21 in the statistical tables. In 1970 there were 12,505 men in this category, and 1,727 women—and again, the burden is on the local prisons. A sample of women investigated in 1967 showed that not more than 10 per cent. were subsequently given custodial sentences, and a Parliamentary Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) showed that taking men and women together, probably less than one-third got custodial sentences; there were 15,041 remands and 4,800 custodial sentences. The Answer related to all remands under Section 26—all medical remands—and Section 14 (3), some of which would have been probation report remands. It excluded medical untried remands, but it probably reflected the overall situation.
It is surely absurd to send people to prison to see a doctor if there is no other reason for sending them. Psychiatrists are now on record as saying that as a rule, better reports can be produced on bail because the patient is in his ordinary setting. There is a need to develop outpatient facilities, including forensic psychiatric facilities, outside prison, and to ensure that the courts use them.
There is the problem of bail. One reason why more people are not bailed is


that courts are often ignorant of the relevant facts. The work of Zander and Keith Bottomley shows that the courts lack information and take the view of the police too uncritically. A recent Cobden Trust pamphlet "Bail or Custody" gives the figures of a study it conducted on this subject. The figures are given in page 90, and show that in 879 cases where bail was discussed the average time of discussion was three minutes. Only in 20 per cent. of cases did discussion exceed five minutes, and in almost 9 per cent. of cases where the defendant was detained there was no discussion at all.
There are interesting figures in page 67 of the same pamphlet which show the success rate over three years of appeals to a judge in chambers by people refused bail by magistrates. The success rate for Crown Office appeals—that is, those privately represented—was 38·5 per cent. For appeals via the Official Solicitor—that is, those not represented—the success rate was 8·4 per cent. If the success rate for the latter class was raised towards that of the former it would make a difference of thousands in the numbers of people received into prison each year.
In the Criminal Justice Bill we have a proposal for bail hostels. This is in a very experimental stage. If it develops, it will help and will, of course, be very welcome, but there is no evidence that it will help much. Why cannot we have a system similar to the Vera system operated in Manhattan? Why can we not do more to avoid the imprisonment of untried and unsentenced people?
Then there is the question referred to in a report published this year on habitual drunken offenders. This is another group where significant reductions can be made in the prison population. Some of these people go to prison for being drunk and disorderly, but large numbers go to prison as fine defaulters. Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, enabled the Secretary of State to abolish the liability for prison of drunken offenders when sufficient suitable accommodation was available: when will that be?
The Weiler Committee, which made the report, said in paragraph 4.28, page 29
'… the facilities required to enable Section 91 of the 1967 Act to be brought into

force need to be adequate to cater from the first for 2,000 male offenders.
That figure might well rise to 5,000. These figures make provision for all types of drunken cases now going to prison; that is to say, they include fine defaulters and alcoholics serving sentences for other types of offence. When will this accommodation be available? In Appendix P, page 238, a minority of the Weiler Committee propose the establishment of a Commission to provide a sense of urgency in dealing with the problem, and that seems to be a good idea. Urgency is certainly required. What is the Home Office attitude?
This problem of the provision of suitable accommodation raises the question of the balance of capital expenditure as revealed in page 44 of the White Paper, where we find vast sums for prisons, but very much smaller figures of capital expenditure for probation and after-care hostels. Accommodation for drunken offenders is one example of something more that is required. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary suggested in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill the other day that the proposed capital expenditure takes account of the trend of sentencing policy in the courts, but surely that trend could be changed, as, for example, by an Order under Section 91, following an urgent effort to provide suitable accommodation. We need to change the trend, and to make possible more treatment in the community in this case as in other cases.
Lastly, there is the problem of fine defaulters. People who have no means are fined and subsequently sent to prison for failure to pay. The Wootton Report in page 9, paragraph 26, deals with the committal of fine defaulters, and says that the numbers are disturbingly high.
They add:
We are not satisfied that magistrates' courts are adequately equipped to carry out the thorough investigation of means which the law requires before a fine defaulter is committed to prison.
A minority of the Committee, including Lady Wootton herself, said in Paragraph 27 that prison for fine defaulters was an anachronism, but the number committed to prison is increasing once again.
So, year by year, the situation is getting worse. Urgent action has become


more urgently necessary. We have deplored the worsening situation and decided to accept it. We should stop accepting and deploring: we should deplore the situation and refuse to accept it. Far more radical action is required. Is there any indication that we will get it?

8.31 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has drawn attention to what he rightly described as the very important report on the working of the Prison Department for 1970. He made a comprehensive, detailed and impressively researched speech. I will do my best to answer all his points, but I am sure that he would be the first to concede that there will be numerous opportunities in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill on which I can be probed again on his more detailed points.
The report, of course, is a depressing picture of the facts of overcrowding which the Prison Department faces. It refers repeatedly to the effects of overcrowding, and I suppose that this was the major concern of those involved in the department during 1970. In view of the degree of overcrowding and the substantial increase in the prison population which occurred unexpectedly in the early months of 1970, it is a great tribute to those who work in the prison service that they coped as adequately as they did during that period.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to clarify the apparent contradiction between the figures in the report for the average population in prison during 1970 and the figures on page 45 of the Public Expenditure White Paper which are forecasts for the years from 1971–72 to 1975–76. There is a simple answer to this apparent discrepancy, as the right hon. Gentleman suspected. The responsibility of the Prison Department extends merely to England and Wales, whereas the Public Expenditure White Paper deals with the whole of Great Britain, and therefore the Scottish figures are added.
The forecast in the White Paper for 1971–72 is 47,850 and for 1975–76 59,350. The equivalent forecast for England and Wales would be 42,550 in

1971–72, rising to 52,950 for the financial year 1975–76.
Figures for these years were given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in HANSARD on 29th March this year, column 290, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson), but they have the complication that they were based on the calendar year rather than the financial year. Taking those figures on which the Home Office has been making its assessments, as shown in column 290, for the year 1972 the figure was likely to be 44,500 rising to 52,000 for the calendar year 1975. I hope that that answers the question about the apparent discrepancy in the figures.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the actual number of people in prison during 1971 has been happily lower than the forecast which was made. The position at the most recent date that I can give, namely, 30th November this year, was that the number of those within the care or custody of the Prison Department was 39,354, whereas, if we go back to 15th July, 1970, 17 months ago, the figure was 40,137. So, for about 12 months, we seemed to be on a plateau concerning the size of the prison population.
It is always dangerous to take too much account of a merely short-term trend. This is perhaps clarified completely by what happened in the early months of 1970. The figure of 35,965 on 15th January, 1970, rose to 40,137 on 15th July that year, a rise of over 4,000 in six months. Indeed, that came about very shortly after the publication by the previous Government of a booklet, "People in Prison", which made the hopeful estimate that the prison population would increase by 1,000 a year and thus reach about 40,000 in the early 1970s. Within six months or so of publication of that booklet, that figure had already been reached.
Therefore, although we now appear to be in a situation where, for 18 months or so, the prison population has remained static in number, I am sure that we are right, in looking at the longer term, to base our forecasts on the trends which we have and to plan on the unfortunate position that the prison population is likely to expand in the future as it has in the past.
The plans set out and dealt with in the public expenditure document take into account the following factors; the rise in population, with reference to the age groups most at risk, the increase in criminality in the country, and sentencing policy as it has developed over the years allowing for a slightly greater use of non-custodial penalties in future; but do not allow in that calculation for any of the effects of the Criminal Justice Bill, because these calculations, for the purpose of providing statistics and fore-casts for the public expenditure document, had to be provided before the Criminal Justice Bill had been formed. Therefore, we have had to make those forecasts on the basis of the increasing size of the population, particularly the growth in the size of the population of those of the relevant age, the proportion of the population sentenced by courts and the sentencing practice of the courts.
As is argued in paragraph 8 of the Annual Report of the Prison Department, the most important of these factors, taken over a period of years, is the growth of criminality as measured in this instance by the number of persons convicted of indictable offences. The number of men aged 17 and over found guilty of indictable offences per 100,000 of the population was 610 in 1960.
This had risen to 1,038 in 1968 and 1,240 in 1970. The figures had doubled in 10 years. The forecasts in the Expenditure White Paper assumed a continuation of the growth in criminality in line with the trend over the past few years. If this seems a pessimistic picture, it must be borne in mind that anybody who in 1960 had predicted the doubling of the number of men convicted of indictable offences by 1970 would have been judged to be over-pessimistic.
I turn to the Government's approach and what we are doing about the present situation. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to say something about our present building programme. It is right to say that if the forecasts turn out to be completely accurate, if in fact the number of additional places provided by 1975 is 9,000 and the increase in the prison population is slightly more than 9,000, the overcrowding will be such that there will be more people sharing cells, although there will be a

lower proportion of the overall prison population living in overcrowded conditions. But if the present trend, as shown by the past year, continues, we are hopeful that the effect of this major prison building programme will be to start to make inroads into the overcrowding.
We are involved in a major prison building programme aimed at restoring the programme to its necessary size, to provide the present system with 20th century buildings and to reduce the proportion of offenders, especially young offenders, who spend periods in custody in obsolete and totally unsuitable Victorian prison buildings. The programme is designed to provide decent although austere living conditions and decent working conditions for the inmates and staff.
There are 13,800 people sleeping two or three in a cell. The aim is to increase the capacity of the system in England and Wales by 9,000 places by 1975–76, bringing capacity to about 44,000. If the provision of more places can keep pace with the rise in population, as now seems more likely, it will be possible therefore to make some inroads into the present deplorable level of overcrowding. If, happily the present population continued to remain constant. at least we should have the advantage of seeing the possibility at some stage of clearing away some of the Victorian prisons.
We have planning clearance for 10,000 prison places, which compares with a figure of 4,000–5,000 when the Government took office. We have planning permission for 14 major schemes and we are in negotiation with local authorities over a further dozen major schemes which would provide planning permission, if successful, for an additional 7,000 places.
I believe that a substantial advance has been made with the present building programme over the last 18 months. In the financial year 1969–70, only one scheme was started, providing 80 places; in 1970–71 work started on schemes to provide 1,500 places; in the current financial year it is hoped to reach a figure of about 3,000 places being started. On top of that, we are making considerably greater use of inmate labour, which, although I concede means that the individual prison perhaps takes slightly longer to build, means that one not only provides work for the skills of men in


prison but reduces substantially the cost of construction.
Work has started on a new young offenders' complex at Glen Parva, in Leicestershire, designed to accommodate 800 male young offenders and comprising remand and allocation centres and a closed borstal. The greater part of it will be built by inmate labour.
But, of course, I would be the first to agree that building new prisons is only half of the problem, and the right hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised the need to look critically at alternatives to imprisonment. He particularly raised the question of overcrowding in local prisons. We have taken account of the fact that there are certain training prisons which we do not wish to get into the overcrowded state of many local prisons.
Part of the overcrowding in local prisons is, of course, caused by unsentenced population. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned remands in custody, the effects on staff doing court duty and the need for the greater use of bail. At the moment, over 10 per cent. of the prison population is unsentenced and he asked me what we were doing about it, referring particularly to medical reports.
In relation to medical reports, the Home Office has made arrangements for an experimental period with certain courts in the London area whereby women on whom the court requires medical reports are referred to Holloway for examination on an outpatient basis. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that merely because one requires a medical report does not seem the best reason for sending someone to prison. But I am afraid that disappointingly little use has been made of the scheme.
However, we are ready to provide in the early part of next year a similar experimental arrangement with Brixton, where it is hoped that outpatient ex-animations can be achieved of men on whom courts require medical reports during remand. So, we are attempting to have remands done on an outpatient basis.
Further, in May this year we sent out a circular to the courts saying that we had arranged that where people were remanded for a medical report the Governor of the prison should inform the court the moment the report was

available so that the court could bring the person back before it at the earliest possible moment rather than wait for the full period of the original remand—say, 21 days—to elapse.
In general the Home Office wish to see the widest use of bail that can be made. It has always been my view that we are likely to achieve further success by reducing the period individuals spend on remand in custody by such methods as speeding up production of reports and getting them back to courts quicker and by the hope that the Courts Act will lead to a more efficient system in the Crown Court or higher courts so that there will be less delay in trials. There will be more success that way than actually reducing the number of people remanded in custody. It must be noted that while over 70 per cent. of people on remand are on bail already the percentage of people remanded on bail is increasing and the percentage of people remanded in custody is decreasing.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill providing for the possibility of a bail hostel. I was asked whether we were satisfied that the courts were getting adequate information before sentencing and it was said that from answers given about social inquiry reports it appeared that we did not know how well this was going. My belief is that social inquiry reports are widely used. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 13 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which, when we have removed the mandatory provisions of the suspended sentence will provide that no court shall pass a sentence of imprisonment on a person who has attained the age of 21 and has not previously been sentenced to imprisonment unless the court is satisfied, after considering reports, that no other method is available.
There is a clear statutory provision that the court must determine
… whether any other method of dealing with any such person is appropriate; and for the purpose of determining whether any other method of dealing with any such person is appropriate the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about drunken offenders and when we


proposed to implement the report. I draw to his attention that the Criminal Justice Bill provides that the police may take people to hospital centres rather than to a court when they are picked up for such offences as being drunk and disorderly. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on Second Reading I said it was the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to provide, on an experimental basis, detoxification centres as recommended in the report.
I sum up by saying our aim is to meet the problems of overcrowding first by a substantially increased prison building programme, and secondly by providing alternatives to imprisonment, not only through the means I have mentioned but also by expansion of the probation service. There is provision in the expenditure White Paper for 1,600 adult probation hostel places where none existed last year and there is also provision for day training centres through the probation service and the new scheme of community service.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was an inconsistency between the two principles which my right hon. Friend adumbrated during the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill. The individual sentence passed by any court on an individual must be a matter for that court, with all the knowledge it has, in the framework of the law. I do not see that there is anything inconsistent with that if this House, by the maximum penalties and the variety of penalties it provides, hopes that the courts will exercise their power in a way which will ensure that those who can be dealt with in ways other than by imprisonment are so dealt with. It is surely the duty of this House to provide an adequate variety of penalties for the courts and to ensure that there is a climate of public opinion which enables them properly to carry out their sentencing.

NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM

8.56 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Before dealing with the subject I wish to raise, may I say that it seems to me extraordinary for a legislature to vote hundreds of millions of pounds and for us to consider estimates of that volume every year without the House first referring the estimates to a committee of the House. I cannot say that it is a unique habit among legislatures, but it is certainly unusual. Most legislatures would not dream of having complicated estimates of this kind and of enormous value, totalling in this Bill over £5 billion, without referring them first to some or many subject committees. We do not have many subject committees, but we have some. I should have liked to ask why we are voting the Vote on Account at this time of the year, but there is no point in my doing so since the Minister who is to reply to this debate is not the right Minister to answer that question. But it seems to be a curious practice to vote, four months in advance, the money for the first part of the next financial year.
The subject I want to raise arises from the Vote on Account provision of £192,000 for the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich. The total cost of that museum to public funds each year amounts to about £600,000—approximately £400,000 on its own vote and approximately £200,000 in ancillary expenses borne elsewhere but out of public funds. In view of the enormous magnitude of that figure, which is not in the least improper in itself, I think that I am justified in looking carefully at the behaviour of the museum, particularly in respect of one case affecting a constituent of mine which has been going on between that constituent and the museum to nobody's satisfaction, especially not the Minister's, for the last 18 months or so.
The case involves a publishing company which uses the facilities of the museum to produce what would be commonly called "the coffee table book". This is a common practice. The British Museum, the Maritime Museum and many others provide these facilities to publishers at a fee. I recognise that the


Minister is not responsible for the day-to-day running of the museum, and if I had not recognised that, he and his senior colleague have impressed it upon me. Nevertheless, he is asking the House to vote this large sum of money, and neither the House nor the Minister can be totally indifferent to the manner in which the museum behaves towards members of the public and companies.
The case in question involves this man. The museum sent to the publishing company an invoice for a cost of £650, approximately, for the work which the publishing company wanted done. The company protested that that was high. The museum then reduced the bill by about £50. The publishing company then complained again and that it thought it was still too high, and it went on complaining for a letter or two, whereupon the museum referred the matter to its trustees. The trustees promptly ordered that the original bill should be doubled.
It seems to me that that is an extraordinary way for a quasi-public institution, almost exclusively dependent upon public funds, to conduct its relations with members of the public. When the bill was first presented to the company it was perfectly clearly marked that the cost for the work would be £212 for the book if it were published in one languauge of £650 approximately if it were published in three or more languages. That was according to the standard set of fees which, I think, had been publicly announced by the museum at the time, subject to a reduction of 50 per cent. on account of the fact that the book was conceived to be of an eduational nature. There was nothing said at the time that that invoice was sent to suggest that the educational nature of the book needed to be verified after publication. Indeed, the museum perfectly well knew the kind of publication involved, as much as the publisher did.
When the company protested, very politely, about the size of the fees, pointing out that the amount was a lot more than the British Museum charged for that kind of thing, and saying
We hope you will be able to reconsider it
the museum came back with a rather tart letter saying that in view of the bulk of the order the museum was prepared to reduce the cost for the world rights for the book to £600 from £650.
The publisher then came back, very politely and moderately—more moderately than I think I would have written—and pointed out that there had been recent discussions in the museum world between museum administrators and representatives of publishers and that in the discussions the whole question of the charging of these fees had been brought up. So a legitimate general point was being made to the museum about charges which the museum was making, particularly in relation to the much lower charges made by the British Museum. The letter ended very politely,
I respectfully request that the matter should be reconsidered.
The museum undertook to reconsider it, and there followed one or two more items of correspondence, and then the next substantive event was that the museum said that it was referring the matter to the board of trustees of the museum. Having consulted the trustees, the museum, on 21st September, 1970, wrote saying to my constituent that the museum now believed that the book in question was not of an educational nature, that, therefore, it should not be subject to the 50 per cent. reduction for books of that kind, and that, therefore, the original bill for £650 ought to be approximately doubled. My constituent naturally reacted to that with some feeling, but he expressed himself, again, very moderately, I think, in the circumstances.
The result of that was that the matter was referred in the first place to the Paymaster-General and then, later, to the Treasury Solicitor, and my constituent received a solicitor's letter from the Treasury Solicitor saying, in effect, that he had better pay up or else proceedings would be taken.
In effect, therefore, what happened was that the museum, having announced a certain charge, having had that charge questioned, having then reduced it by a little, and having then had that bill questioned, promptly doubled the first figure. I do not know whether the initial offer formally stated in an invoice constitutes a contract. Perhaps it does not. I am not much concerned with the legal rights of my constituent against the museum, because they can be pursued through legal means. But, whether legal or not, I regard it as exceedingly bad practice—I know of no private company which


would do it—to set a figure for a certain service and then, because the customer protests about it over some lengthy period, to double the original figure. Yet that is what was done here.
There have been three principal changes in the museum's position. First, having offered the educational rate, openly and in terms, that educational rate it later withdrew, although it knew all along what kind of publication it would be. Second, having offered world rights, that is, the right to publish in all languages, for a fee three times the basic figure, the museum then withdrew that, made a new charge for the basic figure, and said that publication in any other language would cost the same again. Third, having initially given a small reduction or discount for a large order, it then withdrew that small discount.
In sum, my constituent, having first had a bill for £600, had it more than doubled —so far as I can see, not only from my constituent's account but from a reading of the correspondence—in a fit of pique at the annoyance he was causing by the troublesome business of getting this service out of the museum. That is how I read the correspondence.
I should add that in respect of another book similar though less serious difficulties have arisen. For instance, much more recently my constituent has been told that the fees charged by the Maritime Museum are as laid down by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. That is simply not true. Her Majesty's Stationery Office does not lay down the fees for the Maritime Museum. If the phrase is intended to mean that the museum charges the same fees as the Stationery Office charges, that also is not true.
So there seems to be a regular botch-up in the handling of this case on the part of the museum. A botch-up can happen in the best-organised places, and I should not mind it happening here if the museum displayed any remorse for what it had done and showed some sign of wishing to put it right. I regret to say that it does not. The Minister, no doubt, will say that he is not responsible for the day-to-day running and cannot instruct the trustees what to do. But I submit that the Maritime Museum will acquire for itself a bad reputation among

museums if it is prepared to behave in this way.
I copied some of the correspondence to the chairman of the trustees. I have heard nothing from him. It has been possible for the trustees to get in touch with me and explain their position. I think that they may have been in touch with someone else in the House, but they have not been in touch with me.
I hope that the Minister will use his influence to persuade the museum to revert to the original figure which it quoted, and to charge the kind of fees stated on the prevailing list of fees which applied at the time that the first request was made.

9.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), as he will readily appreciate, is a very narrow one, and he will acquit me, therefore, of discourtesy if I deal with it briskly, especially at this late hour.
May I first establish absolutely clearly, although I will try to assist him a little, that he is quite right in saying that there is a properly constituted Board of Trustees, constituted under the National Maritime Museum Act, 1934. Those trustees have been given certain duties by this House, and it is not for me to detract from those duties by seeking to give the trustees detailed instructions.
I had guessed what he hon. Member intended to raise, and I have therefore looked carefully at the file. I find it highly significant that he has left out the most crucial letter of all. It is so crucial that I am sure he does not know of it, because obviously he would not want to present a case, as he has, which is not complimentary to the trustees—indeed, it was not intended to be. But in this House where we speak with total privilege we have to weigh our words carefully. I have something to say about his constituent, and I shall weigh my words.
It is surprising to me that he did not mention the key letter which was written by his constituent on 18th May, 1970. The hon. Member did not mention the name of his constituent's firm and, as he would probably prefer the name not to


be given, I will do the same. The letter was written by the managing director to the museum on receipt of the invoice. This is the key phrase:
May I say at once that I am not aware of anybody responsible here accepting these fees, and I assure you that the first news of this came with the actual invoice.
This establishes right at the outset that there was, according to the hon. Member's constituent, no agreement of any kind, and this was the position each maintained all the way through the negotiations. Far from having said that a fee had been agreed, he started and went right the way through these negotiations saying, "No, I never agreed anything at all", until his solicitors have recently said with a certain coolness that, as a former and future practising solicitor, I admire:
However, with respect, you have overlooked the fact that your clients Mr. Robinson, not only orally agreed with our clients on 30th April the cost…".
Indeed the problem is quite simple and quite resolved. The original invoice of about £600 is now agreed. The hon. Member's constituent who had firmly throughout the negotiations said, "We have never agreed anything", has now said, "Oh, yes, we orally agreed."
All the trustees have done is to say, "All right, if you give us £600 the matter will be over."

Mr. Cunningham: I was perfectly well aware of that letter, and I have it here. I thought it best not to refer to accounts of telephone conversations which I cannot vouch for but to rely on the formal correspondence. Whether or not the publishing company agreed the £600 or £650 does not affect my argument. I am complaining that the bill was increased to more than £1,200. If someone does not agree to pay £600, one does not bump it up to £1,200. I am not saying it is illegal, but it is certainly bad practice, and it is not proper for a public authority to do it.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Member is doing his best for his constituent. The position is quite simple. Originally, there was an invoice. The hon. Member's constituent said that he had never agreed to it, but verbally had done so. Then the matter started off afresh, with, incidentally, certain considerations about

whether this was or was not an educational matter. I do not enter into that at all, it is a matter entirely for the trustees. They were considering whether there should be certain rights for certain overseas countries.
Had the hon. Member's constituent from the word "go" said, "Yes, I agree the figure", the trustees would have said, "So did we." The matter would have ended there, and there would have been no further discussion. The hon. Member has handled this with extreme coolness. It was his own constituent who denied the existence of an agreement which, as honourable men, the trustees would also have acknowledged. However, we need not worry, since his constituent has now said "Yes, I did agree the figure. So that is the figure to be agreed.
I have had a great deal of experience of looking through solicitors' files in tracing debtors. I must say that the hon. Member's constituents are some of the coolest operators I know, and on no grounds at all am I prepared to intervene. I have explained that my noble Friend has no duties in respect of detailed administration, and I reject totally and absolutely the inference that there has been some bad faith or bad dealing by the trustees. I think the hon. Member would be well advised to get clearer instructions the next time he raises a matter in the House.

Mr. Cunningham: The Minister has maligned my constituent in firm words. I am not pursuing this matter just because this is a constituent but because, having read the papers, I am satisfied that he is right on the main point. Whatever may be said about whether a figure was agreed in the first place, no respectable institution issues an invoice for a certain service and then doubles it at a later stage. That will not do, and nothing my constituents have done takes away from the guilt of that.

Mr. van Straubenzee: But it does. These are highly reputable trustees, and I am sure that when the hon. Member reads his speech he may well reconsider what he said about them. If a straightforward body of trustees issues an invoice, which they did, and are first told there was no verbal agreement between two honourable people, then they are free


to explore the matter further. What happened was that the hon. Member's constituents finding themselves faced, possibly quite lawfully, with a larger sum, then decided to remember the agreement into which they had entered previously. I think the hon. Member is trying very hard, but I am not prepared to take the matter further.

SCOTTISH TOWNS (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS)

9.18 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is one of the glories of the British Constitution that at the level of the House of Commons, we can have a dispute, on a minor grievance, of the kind to which we have just listened. We have been in continuous debate in this House since 2.30 p.m. yesterday and I do not keep a Minister up all night just for the fun of it. However, the subject of this debate, proposals for employment-giving improvement of Scottish towns, merits the long 18¾ hour vigil.
The immediate origin of this debate is to be found in an interesting conference which was held last week, organised by James Stormonth Darling, Director of the National Trust for Scotland. A number of varied, well-informed and imaginative contributions at this conference prompted the following question:
In Scotland's present employment situation, ought we not to be thinking wider, and initiating a dynamic and coherent programme, to breathe life into much of our urban heritage? Can we not wash the face of our cities, and face up to the inevitable repairs, which will become obvious when the grime is removed? And face up to the repairs before it is too late?
Let me be specific. I worked very hard during the by-election of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone). I say in all seriousness that in his constituency a number of magnificent buildings have been or are being pulled down. They have to be. I do not quarrel with the decision. They are too far gone. It is too late in the day to repair them. The purpose of the proposals I put forward is to prevent a great many other buildings in our urban heritage from going

the way of those buildings in the Gorbals before it is too late.
At the National Trust conference I was struck by some slides shown by John Gerrard of the Scottish Civic Trust, showing how it is possible, with modern techniques, to bring property to life. Even today people do not always need new buildings to satisfy their needs. A good example might be the North side of St. Andrews Square in Edinburgh. Credit might be given to the Phoenix Assurance Company, for allowing themselves to be persuaded that their original building could be re-furbished, rather than tearing it down and putting up some glass-fronted edifice, common to all cities from Singapore round the world to Los Angeles.
It is not only a question of individual listed buildings or blocks. What contributions at the National Trust Conference really brought home to me is that we have to consider the future of a whole area of a city, or, for that matter, the urban quality of Scottish small towns. As I understand it, this problem has been recognised in relation to the new town of Edinburgh. But this scheme is the only one of its kind in Scotland. Its aims are modest; its sights are low. I hope for an ambitious scheme which will anticipate all the Edinburgh equivalents, in and outside the traditional new town like Abbotsford Place in Glasgow, once magnificent in its design and now a slum. As I have referred to Edinburgh, if the hon. Gentleman can shed any light on who is to be the director of the new town plan, that will be extremely helpful.
All this means money, and money in a big way. The Exchequer, the State, will have to be involved, helping individuals, if the urban scene of Georgian Edinburgh is to be restored. It must be accepted that a lot of Georgian Edinburgh, Georgian Glasgow, yes, Georgian Dundee and Georgian Aberdeen is ugly. They are ugly simply because the properties are run down. People can look with new eyes at a building when it has been done up. Mason work is time-consuming and therefore expensive. But, by its very nature, it is also job-creating.
The same argument goes for small towns and villages. For those with eyes to see, there is some fine architecture in Bathgate, in Broxbourn, in Bo'ness, and


in towns in the constituencies of, I would bet, every Scottish Member. If anyone doubts what can be done, he has only to look at what the National Trust has done at Culross and Dunkeld. There is an important policy conclusion to be drawn from Culross. It is not just a matter of preserving the past. It is also a matter of creating a living present. The quality of life of people of the 1970s there has been improved.
By itself, "preservation" has come to be a bit of a dirty word. But there are still some potential Culrosses which could be restored. In our legislation, there is far too much of the "thou shalt not" and regrettably little of the "thou shalt".
Is it all worth it? Why go to this expense? Well, a great many young people really value heritage. The blend of old buildings restored and new buildings makes for congenial places in which to live.
To put a sharper question, are not there more urgent priorities? Certainly there are. The reconstruction of Ward 7 in Edinburgh Hospital takes precedence, as do houses for those still with outside toilets. But these are not always the choice in 1971. In areas of West Lothian and other constituencies, the house building industry has ground to a halt. It is not exactly very brilliant to advocate a heavy house building programme for parts of West Lothian when there are 300 plus empty houses in Blackburn and a significant number empty in Livingston new town.
If we are talking about priorities, the choice may be less between an ambitious conservation plan and the needs of Ward 7, etc., and more between an ambitious conservation plan and a truly terrible number of unemployed. This is the nub of it. At a time when we have a strong balance of payments surplus, we can find the money by taxing those who can afford it in order to pay for the ambitious urban conservation programme advocated this morning.
A Devil's advocate might ask whether the unemployed can be deployed into the building industry and the building repair industry. The fact is that many of the unemployed are already in the building industry, a lot of them skilled people.
At the National Trust Conference, it was also said with conviction by several

Speakers that some of the skills of ship building could easily be transferred to urban conservation. I can understand that a welder could quickly become trained as a skilled mason, provided that there was some degree of certainty of employment.
Moreover, if a proper coherent plan were presented, I have no doubt that the Scottish Development Department would have every constructive co-operation from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I have reason to know that they would be helpful.
With some hesitation and in fear of ribald comment, I also add my plea to that of John Gerrard of the Civic Trust that some money be spent in preserving the architecture of certain burial grounds or necropolises. Celebration of death architecture is often fascinating and sometimes beautiful. We Scots have more than our share, like the Genoese. It ought to be preserved. Only the State can do it. If it is going to be done, it has got to be done now, before cemetery deterioration wins the battle. About church preservation, I should have liked to have put a case, but as the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has a debate on this subject later, I simply say that I support him in his general view.
The Scottish Office should pay some attention to industrial archeology. West Lothian was in many ways the cradle of the oil industrial revolution, the first in the world. I know that from discussion on Pumpherston, it is expensive, but we should be looking a bit beyond New Lanark as to what we ought to be preserving. For example, one of the old linoleum mills in Kirkcaldy are surely worth preserving for posterity, and many of them are being destroyed. This is a matter of months and not of years. A linoleum mill is as much a part of our history as a castle.
I come to certain reflections. First, if the money can be found, to build warships for which there is no operational requirement, I am sure that £50 million a year for the next five years can be found for an urban conservation programme in Scotland. A system of private contributions from owners of improved property could swell the figure and get more done. A good deal of thought must be given to the relationship between public money, and individual owner of urban


heritage property; but it is not an impossible problem and can be a subject for negotiation. Second, from the cost of such a programme can be deducted a good deal that would otherwise be handed out in unemployment benefit.
Third, I am increasingly doubtful whether Keynesian pump-priming any longer is a cure, still less a rapid cure, for terrible unemployment. In 1971 unemployment is different in its nature from the 1950's and 1960's. I can see a great deal of money being poured into industry and taxpayers' pockets, without much effect on employment. If an ambitious urban programme were adopted, it would have the merit of being highly employment-giving in relation to the public money involved. Heavens—it is a labour-intensive proposition.
Fourth, the Minister will forgive another reference to my visit to China with the Scottish Trade Delegation, on which I have reported to him at length. But in Peking I did reflect how it was that a country with less per capita wealth than ours could set about restoring a city that is at least the equal of Ancient Rome. If Mr. Chou En-Lai can make sure that the Forbidden City and the Temple of Heaven are restored as well as ever they were for the Ming Emperors, I think we might be able to tackle the New Town of Edinburgh, and much of beautiful Glasgow, I mean "beautiful Glasgow", because there are still many fine areas of Glasgow, which are on their way to seed, but not yet beyond redemption.
If any Socialist asks me who built the new town of Edinburgh, I am tempted to give a Chinese answer—10,000 skilled Scottish working people, not much different from the "200,000 working people of China who built the Summer Palace outside Peking"; in the Maoist version.
Fifth, let me re-emphasise that there may be other job-giving priorities. If the Minister says, "We are embarking on a vast crash programme of job-giving improvement of conditions for the mentally ill", or "We are embarking on a job-giving programme of cleaning up beaches and pushing forward on effluent problems like those of Edinburgh", or "We are going to employ construction industry workers by replacing every Victorian or Edwardian school in two years", I

would not myself proselytise for an ambitious urban conservation programme. If the Scottish Office have equally prompt job-giving practical Proposals, they should come forward with them at once.
Sixth, I am a placid man; not an alarmist. But I must say this autumn that I have detected in Scottish people an impatience with political parties, an anger and a frustration with authority, which is new to me. Some of my hon. Friends feel very much the same way. We have got to do something. Unless we do it is not just the Tory Government that will be discredited; it is all of us, the whole Westminster set-up. Among young people, among graduate unemployed, among parents of unemployed, there is a growing feeling of "A plague on both your Houses". For the sake of democracy and order, we have got to produce success with employment. In the long term there may be all sorts of answers to the problems of the Western World. But we have to look at the problems today. At 9.30 a.m., after a Consolidated Fund Bill debate, this is not the time to attempt to solve the economic problems of the Western World.
I am concerned with the short-term-the here and now. I am not asking for promises tonight, though I shall be extremely interested to see how the Minister and the Scottish Development Department mind is working. I do not even expect overnight action on an ambitious urban conservation programme on the scale suggested. But, frankly, what would fill me with contempt would be a reply along the lines, "Sorry, all this is fine, but there is not the money in the kitty."
I expect to hear that before 17th January the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State, accompanied by their Permanent Secretary, have gone to the Chancellor's room in Great George Street and have put a case along these lines—and put it in front of the Chancellor, Chief Secretary, and Sir William Armstrong, Mr. Peter Baldwin, of Public Finance, and other key civil servants. "The unpalatable truth is that, try as we may, we are finding the Scottish unemployment situation intractable. We must do something quickly. Men and women must no longer be allowed to feel


unwanted on such a scale. It is appalling for human dignity. Incidentally, I do not believe in excuse theories of stone-faced Treasury civil servants. Sir William, the son of Scottish Salvation Army Officers, will know precisely what the human situation is.
The Ministers can go on, "We have here certain proposals, among which is a plan for large-scale urban conservation and we know for sure that this will give employment." "By such means," they can say,"jobs can be created even if firms are expanding their production and are still not taking on more people." Now, if there is any argument, they must immediately say, "But Tony, that unmentionable Roy Jenkins left you a healthy balance of payments situation. It has got better and better. Why not make use of it?" As my hon. Friends who were in Government will agree, this is the key. With a healthy balance of payments position, there is no conclusive argument against heavy public expenditure.
If the Secretary of State and his colleagues do not succeed with the Chancellor, I advise them then to have a quiet word with Sir Burke Trend, and no doubt he would be willing to put Scottish unemployment on the agenda of key Cabinet committees, such as the S.E.P. They should then take a trip to see the Lord President, and appeal to him as a former candidate in Dumbartonshire. Nor should they forget to corner the Foreign Secretary at a favourable moment. Being a Scottish hon. Member, he should see the truth, and the Minister could say to him, "I once gave up a seat for you. Now it is your chance to help me, when Scotland needs help."
I say this not to be personal but because it is interesting to note how British Government works. One truth is that when there is an inter-Departmental argument, involving the Treasury, the best line of attack is to approach the most senior Cabinet Ministers possible who do not have home spending Departments, who therefore have no financial axe of their own to grind and who are in a position to approach the Chancellor. Scottish Ministers have the advantage of a Foreign Secretary, who happens to be a Scot, and a Lord President, who I think understands the Scottish unemployment problem. They must be used. There

should be some potentially very strong allies in this approach to the Chancellor.
I ask the Minister to conduct a Whitehall operation and I am sure that if he goes about it the right way, he will succeed in getting the money for such a programme. But if he fails, then I must urge on him a more disagreeable course of action. He and the Secretary of State must confront the Prime Minister, in friendship, and say, "Scottish unemployment situation is out of hand. Alas, Ted, it is not responding to our doctrinal treatment. We must be brave, swallow our pride, and change course. We have here schemes which are costly but which, at least, we know for certain will work, as direct employment is provided. We ask you in Cabinet to override the Chancellor and the Treasury." If the Prime Minister refuses, then in my view it is the duty of the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State to say, "There is no malice or recrimination. There is no threatening or anger. We are very sorry, but we feel that we must resign, all five Scottish Ministers, en bloc." I realise that any attempt to appear to resort to political blackmail of the Prime Minister would be counter-productive. Since there are not five credible replacements, the Scottish Ministers have the whip hand. Politics can be rough and unpleasant.
This is not an easy course that I am urging on Scottish Ministers. But unemployment for thousands of Scottish families is even rougher and more unpleasant than for politicians in office. Many children will not be getting many presents this Christmas, fathers' positions in the family and dignity are shattered, mothers are embarrassed. Many families face sheer want. Basically, it's all so unnecessary.
An ambitious urban conservation scheme may not be the priority answer—it is certainly not a panacea—but it would be practical, it would give employment and it would make Scotland a better place. This case deserves an answer before Parliament returns.
If the Ministers have better plans, let them spell them out and good luck to them. If not, they should focus their minds on how a major conservation programme for Scottish towns can be translated into action.

9.36 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I thank the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for his interesting and carefully thought-out suggestions. This is not the first time that we can congratulate him for raising a matter in such a manner. The way in which he has done so is tremendously helpful. I will look most carefully at all his detailed suggestions to see how far we can go along the road that he has suggested, and to see what possibilities there are. All his constructive suggestions merit close attention, and I will give them close attention in the days immediately ahead.
I also agree with the hon. Member's general proposition that there is now a major need for more concentration than at any time, in the recent past anyway, on conservation of some of the better old buildings in our towns and cities. I agree that our emphasis on this, for many good reasons, has not been all it should be and that the time is now ripe, apart from all other considerations, for much greater attention and more resources to be devoted to trying to conserve what we have.
I also agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member's other main theme when he outlined the background of heavy unemployment. The effects of unemployment concern us all. The way he put that was absolutely right. It is yet another benefit of this type of thing that it benefits employment very greatly.
We have already in the past year or two made some major steps in the direction that the hon. Member has advocated. For instance, a very great increase in improvements grants was announced and enacted this summer—a 50 per cent. increase. This scheme is still going very well. The publicity which the Scottish Office mounted for this scheme is the biggest that it has ever mounted. The rate of inquiries has been very high and all my evidence is that a great deal of work is just about coming to fruition in the improvement of older houses. We want every local authority and private owner to take advantage of these extra higher rates before the finishing date in June 1973.
We have, exceptionally, for the first time ever, allocated special schemes of £5 million over five years for environmental assistance improvement in Glasgow and have allocated a similar sum over five years for environment improvement in areas of west central Scotland apart from Glasgow itself.
We have all been anxious to get this under way. It will not surprise anyone that we have been somewhat disappointed that it has not been possible to get the work going more quickly. The problem here is not money—we have the money allocated; it is all there—but the organisation of the preparatory work of planning, permissions, contracts, tenders, and so on. It is not through any lack of money; it is the sheer weight of organisation needed for this kind of operation which makes the scheme work more slowly than we would wish.
Glasgow has now appointed a director to head its organisation for environmental improvement. I am anxious that Glasgow should press further ahead with getting the organisation set up to back the director. There is no point in appointing a director and hoping that he will get on with it. We need an organisation to back him up, and I shall be pressing Glasgow to do that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the scheme for the Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee which was inaugurated at its first meeting on 31st May. The Committee appointed an interim director, Mr. Ian Begg, an architect, who is carrying on on an interim basis until the appointment of the full-time director. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman who will be appointed as the full-time director, but applications for the post are being sifted and it is hoped that an appointment can be made early in the New Year. Progress has been made under the interim director and I hope that it will continue.
The hon. Gentleman will know, with his connections with the Civic Trust, of the special effort of the Civic Trust in its "Facelift Glasgow" campaign to encourage people in the centre of Glasgow to clean up and improve their own homes. This has had interesting results.
I want to think carefully about what the hon. Gentleman said, but I should like to outline one or two of the problems


which arise. This kind of work is labour-intensive and, more than that, it is craftsman-intensive. The people who will do this work are craftsmen in the construction industry. There are far too many of these people on the dole, and we should like to see them employed.
Another important factor is that these schemes are not only labour- and crafts-man-intensive, but they are intensely management-intensive. The sheer problem of getting the planners, draughtsmen and experts to give their time to this work quickly enough is one of the difficulties in getting it going. Wherever money is allocated for this work, there is a tremendous amount of paper work and planning to do. This leads to a heavy workload on local authorities and local planning authorities. This is one example of the difficulties. I should emphasise that I am not in any way detracting from what the hon. Gentleman said; I am outlining some of the difficulties.
We all agree that grants for clearance of derelict sites are generous by any standard. They provide 85 per cent. of the cost, and the remaining 15 per cent. is eligible for rate support grant. In many county areas it means that the vast majority of the cost comes from the Government. Yet, we all agree that, apart from certain areas which have worked very hard on the scheme, there is too little of this work going on in Scotland. This is not due to lack of interest, but to the sheer pressure on the time of planning authorities and planning officers in getting round to the organisational problems. We will do anything that we can to help, but it is organisation and management which is the problem.
The most difficult problem, about which the hon. Gentleman has probably done more than most to try to solve, is to convince people of the value of preserving and improving old buildings. Far too many people think of old buildings as places in which no one in his right mind would want to live. This is absolute nonsense. Old buildings, if caught in time and dealt with imaginatively, can make not adequate, but excellent, attractive and most acceptable to live in homes. There is a tremendous job to be done in convincing people—not only ordinary people, owner-occupiers and tenants, but also local authorities and those who work for them—that there is a major possibi-

lity here of making homes that people will be anxious to live in, if we get them in time and put the money into them.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, and I shall look very carefully at his suggestions. I hope that we shall be able to do at least something in the direction the hon. Gentleman has advocated.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

EMPLOYMENT (WEST DURHAM)

9.46 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I welcome, even at this hour, the opportunity to make a special plea for a special area. I apologise to the Minister for extending the night shift so long in his case, but I know that he understands how desperately I feel about the situation in West Durham. The present situation is grim, and the outlook is bleak.
At the Meadowfield end of the constituency we have an industrial estate which desperately needs development. There are two untenanted factories there, one of which has been untenanted for over two years. Another, a modern new advance factory, is looking for a tenant.
At the Crook end we have two factories on the growing industrial estate also untenanted, and the news from the Advance Throwing Mills, which has made a significant contribution to the employment of male labour in the constituency, is that 180 redundancies are in prospect in the opening months of next year.
I do not want to deal with the broad aspects of regional policy. We have had a number of debates on that. I want to make a special plea in regard to the particular difficulties of West Durham, which


presents a problem over and above the continuing problem of the development areas.
I was born and grew up there. One has to live in the area to realise how much we were dependent on coal mining. In the communities where I lived, unless one passed the 11-plus, it was taken for granted that all boys went to the pit. For long periods between the wars in village after village over 80 per cent. of the men were unemployed. That is an indication of the great dependence my area had on coal mines. The pit was the source of livelihood and the parameter of prosperity.
In 1955, which is not so long ago, there were as many as 26 coal pits in my constituency. Today there is only one, which shows what an accelerated rundown there has been in the main source of employment. The 1960s were for my area a period of running very hard in order to stand still.
Because of the accelerated pit closures during the 1960s, in the administrative county of Durham there were by 1969 a total of 33,400 fewer men employed than in 1960, and in 1970 and 1971 the situation has deteriorated tragically. During 1970 6,228 redundancies were notified in the county and in the first eight months of 1971 there were 9,518. The county planning officer estimates that by the end of the year over 14,000 jobs will have been lost in the county this year. The whole House understands what that means in terms of human misery, frustration and tragedy.
What has to be done? I want to say one thing only on broad policy which applies to all development areas. The Durham County planning officer, who has spent a considerable part of his life trying to attract new industry to Durham, says:
The change in incentives introduced by the Conservative Government in October 1970 has contributed to the reduction in the flow of new industry to the County. Several promising projects were cancelled.
That is not a mere opinion. It is based on fact and that judgment is shared by every section of the community in the county. It has become less worthwhile for new industry to move to development areas and this has made the situation in my area, a special area for which I am

pleading, more desperate than ever. The truth is that even if the economy showed a very quick upward surge, even if we got the economic growth we all want, this would not solve the problems of West Durham. There would still need to be direct Government intervention in order to bring prosperity to the area.
Areas such as West Durham must have special discriminatory treatment to enable us to compete on equal terms even with other parts of the development area. The Labour Government recognised this and established the special development area. The whole of my constituency was immediately designated in the area because of the history and the long-term decline. The expansion by the present Government of these special development areas has been a serious blow to my constituents and to the industry of my area. The county planning officer gives chapter and verse and states that one good firm which would have provided employment has abandoned interest in West Durham because of the change. This is not an opinion. It is fact. The widening of special development areas to include even new towns and areas in the east of the county has diminished the attractions of areas such as mine and made a nonsense of the original concept.
The Under-Secretary of State admitted this last month, speaking to the Northern Productivity Association. He said that extending development areas does not provide more jobs but merely spreads those which exist more thinly at the expense of the worst-hit areas. I am pleading this morning for one of the worst-hit areas. This particular item of policy by the Government has been felt tragically there.
I have three suggestions to put. First, in an area like mine we need discrimination in our favour by Government instead of blanket incentives which are unselective and are Riven undiscriminatingly to any kind of firm. We need a labour-intensive type of industry. Where such new industry is available, the Government should not talk about percentages but should say, "This kind is the kind of industry which will meet the needs of West Durham because it will solve many of the economic and social problems there, and we shall work in partnership with it to establish a viable industrial project in West Durham." In


Meadowfield we have a very good industrial site of 165 acres. The roads have been improved, I am glad to say. There is good access and egress. This matter needs selective intervention by the Government to establish labour-intensive industry which will solve the problems of West Durham.
We have a hard core of unemployed older men. At a labour exchange in my constituency, which serves no other constituency, one-third of the men on the register are over 50 and have been unemployed for more than 12 months. What prospects have they as they look forward to Christmas? None at all. No one can talk optimistically to them about the future. These are men, many of whom have served over 40 years in heavy industry. The Government should examine this because any man who has served more than 40 years in heavy industry ought to be retired on a decent pension and the industry in which he worked ought to be making a contribution to his pension. We must look at this business of putting them on the register.
I come to my last proposal. We have a low-wage economy in the North as against the average wage in the country. I do not know the entitlement to family income supplement in my area but I know that I have great difficulty in encouraging families who should be receiving it to make application. For obvious reasons the social security department is overworked and we have to wait some time for officers to deal with complaints. The same is true of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
There is a great need for social work in my area and I believe that in such an area there is a case for the Government establishing a pilot project. First, it would enable us to employ some of our youngsters, who have stayed on at school to get "O" levels and C.S.E., in public work which will be satisfying to them and valuable to the community and secondly it would give help to an area which has been harder hit than most because of pit closures. West Durham has many problems because of the economic circumstances we have lived through in the past 50 years. There is a great opportunity here for extending public service to a pilot scheme whereby people could be employed doing valuable work bringing relief and hope to those who desperately need it.
My part of the country is attractive. We have done a tremendous amount in removing spoil heaps and so on. The Minister talked to those who had come to work in the city at the Post Office savings bank offices. They spoke glowingly of the area as being an attractive place in which to live. Bringing the Post Office savings bank there has been a great success. It is a neighbourly community because of our long traditions of heavy industry. Small communities breed neighbourliness that enhances the quality of life. The Government should will the means—there is no easy way out—which will assist us to help ourselves and to restore our prosperity so that our people may make the contribution they are anxious to make towards the economic well-being of the nation.

10.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): Although the hour is late—or early, depending on one's view of it—I congratulate the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) on securing this debate and on the constructive manner in which he put his case. I am glad of the opportunity to discuss the situation in this part of Durham, which, as he and other hon. Members know, has had my close attention on a number of occasions this year.
The employment situation in West Durham varies considerably from district to district. In Durham and in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area the overall unemployment situation shows little change from 1969, although it is true that there has been a deterioration since last year. Indeed, in November, unemployment among men in the Bishop Auckland group was marginally lower than in 1969, and in Durham total unemployment at 4·9 per cent. is below the average for special development areas and, indeed, development areas. In the Consett group, however, unemployment has risen sharply this year and now stands at 8·4 per cent.
But, however one looks at the differences in the pattern of unemployment in the area, no one can possibly regard unemployment at the level it is in West Durham as in any way satisfactory, and I fully share and understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. But, as he fairly said, the area's problems are not new.


It had to face more than its share of the rundown of the coal industry in the late 1960s, and this has left problems which have still not been satisfactorily resolved. The coal industry has passed through a more stable period recently, the last closure in West Durham being Tudhoe Park in May, 1969. This left seven collieries in the area as a whole employing some 2,700 men.
In spite of the programme of closures which the miners of Durham have had to face, they have set an example to many others by the splendid way they have accepted these changes. Less coal has been lost in the North-East from disputes than in any other part of the country, and for many years the region has had the lowest absence percentage. I feel sure that, but for the qualities of the Durham miner, this period of change, painful and tragic though it was, would have been very much more so.
The other major industry in which problems have arisen in West Durham is steel. He and other hon. Members know that it has been long and widely recognised that the British steel industry has to increase its productivity substantially if it is to face the strong and growing foreign competition. This brings painful decisions in terms of employment in all major steel-producing areas in this country, and I think that the same is true abroad. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the bulk of the steel industry was nationalised, one of the main reasons put forward in support of that Measure was that it would facilitate badly needed rationalisation. Previous Ministers have themselves recognised this. It is not, therefore, surprising that reductions in manpower are now taking place. Unfortunately, West Durham has not been able to escape these job losses, with the result that employment at Con-sett has fallen.
As the hon. Member knows, the future of individual steel works and the handling of manpower rundown are matters for the British Steel Corporation, as, in the first instance, are proposals for capital investment. But the corporation's future development programme is at present the subject of joint review by the B.S.C. and the Government. This is a highly complex exercise as a result of which it is hoped to agree guidelines for the Cor-

poration's long-term strategy. It is bound to take time to complete, and it would be wrong to hurry it unnecessarily and risk taking wrong decisions in this key industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement as soon as possible. In the meantime, I should make clear that there is no question of the Government holding back B.S.C. investment; the approved figure for the current year is the high one of £225 million.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Grant: No. I will not give way. Time is short, and I am dealing with the case put by the hon. Member for Durham. North-West.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about recent redundancies in West Durham and mentioned specifically those at the Advance Throwing Mills. I am well aware that any new redundancy is particularly unwelcome in West Durham. But, nevertheless, the decisions are for the commercial judgment of the firms concerned. In the case of Advance Throwing Mills, the demand for texturised yarns, which grew rapidly over the decade up to 1970, has slackened and there is now overcapacity. This has been particularly true of textured nylon, which has changed from being a speciality product commanding a premium price to a commodity traded on a bulk basis. While the outlook for texturised yarns seems now to be rather brighter, we must, I think, expect that they will increasingly be produced by the fibre makers rather than the independent throwsters.
The hon. Member emphasised the need to attract more new industry into West Durham to replace the loss of jobs in the older industries. I entirely agree, of course, that more new industries are needed in the area and assure him that the Government are doing what they can to interest suitable industrialists in locating new factories there. But we should recognise how much has already been achieved over the last decade or so. One tends to forget it. In the Consett group of employment exchanges the proportion employed in manufacturing industry and in the services has increased. I realise that to some extent these changes reflect a decline in employment in mining, but


much is also due to the introduction of new industry—over the last ten years, for example, some 40 firms have set up in West Durham.
On the question of S.D.A. benefits, the area's special development status gives it very substantial advantages in attracting more new industry. One may take a view on how effective they are, but, nevertheless, the S.D.A. incentives include operational grants for incoming firms; rent free periods of up to five years in D.T.I. factories; building grants of 35 per cent. and for incoming undertakings, in certain circumstances 45 per cent.; and favourable tax allowances. In addition, grants and other assistance towards training is available from the Department of Employment.
The hon. Gentleman knows that he has heard all this before but I am constantly amazed to find so many people—including industrialists—who have not. I firmly believe that this package of incentives will prove very effective once the economy starts to grow at a faster rate and industrialists come forward with new projects.
On the question of blanket incentives, the hon. Gentleman suggested that blanket incentives are not sufficient and that there is a need to attract the type of industry particularly suited to an area. Our incentives are specially geared to encouraging new undertaking and providing employment. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions I shall be glad to consider them. I do not believe in being dogmatic on this. I would say, however, that the Department of Trade and Industry in the course of its daily work in suggesting locations in the assisted areas always takes account of the particular facilities available and the special needs of individual areas in conjunction with the specific needs of inquirers. In the final analysis it is for the commercial judgment of firms which of these locations will best enable them to succeed and provide stable employment. My Department is constantly on the look-out for growth industry with projects suitable for assisted areas; the measures we are taking to stimulate the economy will improve the flow of these projects.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the dilution of incentives, which he claimed arose from the extension of S.D.A.s.

At the time we felt it right to extend the S.D.A. benefits to those areas such as West Central Scotland where the problem of redevelopment and unemployment was proving intractable, and where unemployment was—and the hon. Gentleman must face it—on a drastically larger scale than in West Durham. But this did not imply any lessening of efforts to interest suitable industrialists in the Durham S.D.A.s. Having said this, I accept of course the point that we cannot extend assisted areas benefits indefinitely without diluting the degree of priority. We have to retain a balance in recognising the needs of areas with growing industrial and employment problems, while retaining the principle of priority. I agree with him entirely that there is no merit in extensive dilution.
On the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman on advance factories, he will know that 22 advance factories have been approved in West Durham over the years; 16 are allocated; four others are complete and available for allocation and two more have been authorised under the rolling programme of factory building.
My Department is making every effort to interest suitable industrialists in these and other factories available in the area. The hon. Member referred specifically to the vacant factories on the Crook and Meadowfield estates. The Crook factories have been suggested by my Department to 31 firms and 13 of these have visited them, while the Meadowfield factory has been suggested to 14 firms. I am hopeful that once the economy responds to the Chancellor's measures, industrialists will come forward with new projects and the D.T.I. factories that remain empty in West Durham will then find occupants.
The hon. Gentleman then made the point that there was a special need for more work for the over 55s. I entirely accept his point that these men find it much more difficult to find suitable employment, even though they are often able to give many more years of service. It is the Department of Employment's general policy to encourage employers to engage older workers whenever possible and not to set age limits when notifying vacancies. The Department of Employment's facilities are fully available to help older workers find new jobs. Moreover, there are special arrangements whereby


grants are available to employers in assisted areas who engage and train workers aged 45 and over and who have been unemployed for at least eight weeks.
The hon. Gentleman may like to know that in West Durham at the September count, of 924 workers unemployed through colliery closures or planned reductions in colliery manpower, 860 were over 55 and 661 of these were receiving benefit under the redundant mineworkers' scheme. He will no doubt know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry recently announced that the Government proposed to continue this scheme, although modified in certain respects, for men made redundant between March, 1972 and 1974.
As for the hon. Member's suggestion that men employed in heavy industry should be allowed to retire early, although this is not the occasion to go into this point in any detail, there would undoubtedly be many problems in discriminating between one industry and another in the pensions scheme. If the hon. Member has in mind the recent suggesions about reducing the pension age on the grounds that this would increase employment for others, this would of course be costly and of doubtful effectiveness for such a purpose.
The pension age is no more than the minimum age at which people can be paid the National Insurance pension if they choose to retire. The law does not compel anyone to give up work at any particular age. A change in the National Insurance pension age would not necessarily affect the time at which people retire; the practices of employers and those in occupational pension schemes have a great bearing on the time when people retire. A change in the national scheme would no doubt raise the need for modification of other schemes. Even if a change in the national scheme led people to retire sooner, it does not follow that the jobs vacated would meet the particular needs of unemployed workers in the right places. It is likely that a lower national retirement age would benefit occupational pensioners who retire at 60 more than those in manufacturing industry. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raised this point so as to enable it to be discussed.
The importance of a region's infrastructure is well known to the hon. Gentleman. He recognises, as I do, the dramatic change in the quality of the basic services in the North-Eastern region, including West Durham, in recent years in such matters as roads, communications, housing, schools and public buildings. This should be said because it is a major factor in attracting industry to the area. The hon. Member will realise that there has been a programme of additional public expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment amounting to some £30 million in the northern region on these aspects.
Likewise, in the matter of dereliction—which is important, especially in areas like West Durham, with its long-established coal mining industry—inroads are being made into this problem, backed by the 85 per cent. grants which the Department of the Environment are prepared to make available. I hope that local authorities in West Durham will be prepared to carry on with the good work that is being done.
In conclusion, I accept that unemployment in West Durham is high, and in places very high. It is right, even at this time of the morning, that the House should give careful consideration to it. But it would be wrong to ignore the more cheerful aspects. For example, jobs reported to the Department as expected to arise within the next four years in authorised new industrial building and existing buildings taken over by manufacturing firms in West Durham amount to over 5,000. This is separate from additional jobs in existing industrial premises and in the service industries. When set against even the current unemployment level of about 7,500, this is encouraging. I realise that there may be further job losses, and there are pockets of especially serious unemployment within the area where the immediate prospects are less hopeful. We shall continue with every effort to get the jobs where they are most needed. The measures which the Government have taken to improve the general economic situation of the country will, I am certain, make this task increasingly rewarding before long.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.